Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly granted the branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The jury could not have found that the defendant was wholly free from negligence based on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134). The evidence establishes that the plaintiffs' automobile hit the defendant's automobile broadside in the middle of an intersection. The defendant's approach to the intersection was controlled by a stop sign, and the plaintiff had the right of way. The jury disregarded the credible evidence that the defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) and § 1172 (a) by failing to yield to the plaintiffs' approaching vehicle and that he failed to see that which he should have seen with the proper use of his senses (see, Milka v Hernandez, 187 A.D.2d 1031; Weiser v Dalbo, 184 A.D.2d 935; see also, Olsen v Baker, 112 A.D.2d 510).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court did not err by denying the branch of their motion which was for judgment in their favor as a matter of law and by ordering a new trial (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493; Sic v Moran, 208 A.D.2d 607). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.