DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendants' contention, the verdict on the issue of liability was not against the weight of the evidence. A jury verdict 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 A.D.2d 129, 134, quoting Delgado v. Board of Educ., 65 A.D.2d 547, affd 48 N.Y.2d 643). 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 Schray v. Amerada Hess Corp., 297 A.D.2d 339). Under the circumstances of this case, the jury could have concluded, based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, that the defendants were negligent and deviated from good and accepted medical practice, and that their negligence and deviation from good and accepted medical practice was the proximate cause of the plaintiff Michelle McCord's permanent brain injury.
Furthermore, the damage awards for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses, as reduced by the Supreme Court, do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see Weldon v. Beal, 272 A.D.2d 321, 322; Baumgarten v. Slavin, 255 A.D.2d 538, 540; DiMarco v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 247 A.D.2d 574, 576).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.