DeLUCA v. BENSONHURST GROCERY

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the jury verdict finding that the injured plaintiff was negligent, but that her negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, was not against the weight of the evidence, as the jury's finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129; Campbell v. Crimi, 267 A.D.2d 343, 344). Under the facts of this case, the issues were not "`so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause'" (Reese v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 297 A.D.2d 793, quoting Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525, 527; cf. Ferrante v. County of Nassau, 301 A.D.2d 565 [2d Dept, Jan. 21, 2003]).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.