Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence "unless `the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence'" ( Nicastro v. Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134, quoting Delgado v. Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 547, affd 48 NY2d 643; see Hersh v. Diekmann, 264 AD2d 815, 816). In reviewing the record to ascertain whether the verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, great deference must be given to the fact-finding function of the jury, as it was in the foremost position to assess witness credibility ( see McDonagh v. Victoria's Secret, 9 AD3d 395, 396; Schray v. Amerada Hess Corp., 297 AD2d 339; Teneriello v. Travelers Cos., 264 AD2d 772). Under the circumstances of this case, the jury could have concluded, based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, that the respondent did not commit medical malpractice.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, are without merit.