The verdict in this action, finding defendants' liable for failing to obtain plaintiffs informed consent to medical treatment while finding that defendants' malpractice was not a substantial cause of plaintiffs injury, was neither internally irreconcilable ( cf., Sobie v. Katz Constr. Corp., 189 A.D.2d 49, 54) nor against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supports the verdict that plaintiff would not have agreed to the surgery if he had been properly advised of the attendant risks and that the treatment was a substantial cause of the deterioration in plaintiffs condition ( see, Flores v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 109 A.D.2d 198, 201). The conflicts between the two sides' experts presented a question for the jury and we see no reason to conclude that the jury could not have resolved those conflicts as they did upon a fair consideration of the evidence. To the extent that defendants now challenge the qualification of plaintiffs expert to testify as such, their claim has not been preserved by timely objection to the admissibility of the expert's testimony at trial. We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Tom, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.