HOWELL v. CECILIA

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, inter alia, negligent misrepresentation based on defendant's alleged failure to disclose that property purchased by plaintiffs had sustained fire damage. The judgment, entered upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiffs the sum of $110,444.74, and Supreme Court denied defendant's post-trial motion to set aside the verdict. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenges to the court's charge ( see CPLR 4110-b; Harris v Armstrong, 64 NY2d 700, 702). Contrary to defendant's further contentions, the verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and is not inconsistent ( see Latour v Hayner Hoyt Corp. [appeal No. 2], 13 AD3d 1147; Hotaling v Corning Inc., 12 AD3d 1064, 1066), and the award of damages does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see CPLR 5501 [c]; Latour, 13 AD3d at 1148; Hotaling, 12 AD3d at 1066).