CELENTANO v. MANHEIM SERVICES CORPORATION

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the jury verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129). Moreover, at trial, the plaintiffs did not voice any objection or move for a mistrial with respect to certain remarks made by the defendant's counsel in summation. As a result, they failed to preserve for appellate review their challenge to these remarks ( see, Dunne v. Lemberg, 54 A.D.2d 955), which, in any event, does not require reversal.

Miller, J. P., Ritter, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.