Contrary to the defendant's contentions, it cannot be said that "there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] 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). The injured plaintiff established, through expert medical testimony, that the defendant departed from good and accepted medical practices when, in attempting to insert an intrauterine device, he perforated her uterus, and that such departure was a proximate cause of her injuries ( see, Mortensen v. Memorial Hosp., 105 A.D.2d 151, 158; Lyons v. McCauley, 252 A.D.2d 516, 517). Moreover, according the jurors their proper deference as finders of the facts and assessors of the credibility of witnesses, we find that the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Rubin v. Aaron, 191 A.D.2d 547).
The award for damages did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see, CPLR 5501 [c]).