DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument of a decision ( see, Stockfield v. Stockfield, 131 A.D.2d 834; DeFalco v. JRS Confectionary, 118 A.D.2d 752); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is otherwise affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiffs' contention that the jury verdict should be set aside as inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review because the issue was not raised before the jury was discharged ( see, Barry v. Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803, 806; Kraus v. Rotem, 249 A.D.2d 371). In any event, we find no inconsistency in the jury verdict ( see, Briccio v. Disbrow, 212 A.D.2d 565; Moskowitz v. Israel, 209 A.D.2d 676).
The Supreme Court properly denied that portion of the motion which sought to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The jury verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence presented at trial ( see, Galimberti v. Carrier Indus., 222 A.D.2d 649; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).