Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"`"`A verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as against the weight of the credible evidence unless the preponderance in favor of the plaintiff was so great that the finding in favor of the defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence'"'" ( Ciotti v. New York Hosp., 221 A.D.2d 581; Cerasuoli v. Brevetti, 166 A.D.2d 403, 404; Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A.D.2d 539, affd 9 N.Y.2d 829; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129). Here, the jury was entitled to accept the testimony of the witnesses who actually observed the allegedly defective stair rail prior to the accident, but did not observe any corrosion. Thus, it cannot be said that the verdict in the defendants' favor could not have been reached by a fair interpretation of the evidence.
Furthermore, we find that the videotape of the allegedly defective stair rail, taken three days after the accident, constituted cumulative evidence, and its exclusion was at most harmless error ( see, Tannen v. Long Is. R.R., 215 A.D.2d 745; Walker v. State of New York, 111 A.D.2d 164, 165). Balletta, J.P., Miller, Sullivan and Copertino, JJ., concur.