Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent payable by the appellants.
The plaintiffs Joan E. Strauss and Ralph Strauss argue that a new trial is warranted because the jury's findings were inconsistent. We disagree.
Objections to a verdict on the ground of inconsistency must be raised before the jury is discharged, at which time corrective action may be taken by resubmitting the matter to the jury (see, Barry v. Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803, 806; Marine Midland Bank v. Russo Produce Co., 50 N.Y.2d 31; Alamia v. Medical Center, 119 A.D.2d 711; Britez v. National Car Rental, 111 A.D.2d 205). Because the claim of inconsistency was not raised in the instant case until after the jury was discharged, the plaintiffs must be deemed to have waived this objection.
We also find that the jury's findings were not against the weight of the evidence, as they were supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (Sheps v. Hall Co., 112 A.D.2d 281, 283; see also, Baum v. Fox Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, 132 A.D.2d 788; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129; O'Boyle v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 78 A.D.2d 431). Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.