DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs' contention that the jury verdict should be set aside as inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review, since they did not raise that issue before the jury was discharged (see Barry v. Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803, 806; Uher v. Toys "R" Us, 292 A.D.2d 595; Ramos v. New York City Hous. Auth., 280 A.D.2d 325, 326; Devine v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 443, 444; Pelosi v. TJA Maintenance Programming, 247 A.D.2d 453, 454). In any event, the contention is without merit (see Miller v. Long Is. R.R., 286 A.D.2d 713; Miglino v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 451; Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525). Further, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, as it was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 133).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, O'BRIEN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.