DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Although the municipal defendants' motion to set aside the jury verdict was made on insufficient notice ( see CPLR 2214[b]), the plaintiffs were not prejudiced by this procedural irregularity, and waived their objection to it by opposing the motion on the merits ( see Henry v. Gutenplan, 197 A.D.2d 608; Adler v. Gordon, 243 A.D.2d 365; Matter of Venner, 235 A.D.2d 805; Todd v. Gull Contr. Co., 22 A.D.2d 904). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in refusing to determine the motion on its merits.
However, we reject the municipal defendants' contention that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case because the police officers involved in the assault were acting beyond the scope of their employment. It is well settled that for a court to conclude that a jury verdict is unsupported "by sufficient evidence as a matter of law, there must be `no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial'" ( Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 132, quoting Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499). Since the determination of whether an employee's actions fall within the scope of employment depends heavily on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the question is ordinarily for the jury ( see Riviello v. Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297, 302-303; Graham v. City of New York, A.D.3d [2d Dept., Dec. 22, 2003]; Corson v. City of New York, 290 A.D.2d 408). Contrary to the municipal defendants' contention, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to permit the jury to rationally infer that the three police officers involved in the assault were acting in their official capacity on a police matter when they assaulted the injured plaintiffs ( see Graham v. City of New York, supra; Corson v. City of New York, supra; Morgan v. New York City Hous. Auth., 255 A.D.2d 565; Figueroa v. New York City Hous. Auth., 232 A.D.2d 293). In this regard, we note that since none of the officers testified at trial, the jury was allowed to a draw "the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits" against the municipal defendants on the issue of whether the officers were on duty at the time of the incident ( see Coliseum Towers Assocs. v. County of Nassau, A.D.3d [2d Dept., Dec. 15, 2003]; Small v. Human Resources Admin, 299 A.D.2d 238; Matter of Joseph C., 297 A.D.2d 673).
We decline to address the plaintiffs' request for certain affirmative relief since, as a general rule, relief on appeal may not be afforded to a nonappealing party ( see 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co., 98 N.Y.2d 144, 151; Colonial Coop. Ins. Co. v. Desert Storm Constr. Corp., 305 A.D.2d 363).
The municipal defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.