DiMICELLI v. McCORMACK

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence when "there is simply 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" ( Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499). Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs ( see Alexander v. Eldred, 63 N.Y.2d 460, 464), the plaintiffs established that the defendant wholly or in part created the dangerous condition which caused the injured plaintiff to fall ( cf. Bernstein v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 1020, 1022). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( cf. Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 132-135).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.