Judgment affirmed, with costs.
This action arose as the result of injuries sustained in a rear-end collision. There was conflicting testimony as to whether plaintiff had been stopped at a red light for several moments when he was hit, or whether he suddenly and without proper warning stopped his car, and defendant Locerto could not avoid a collision. In such a case, the issue of credibility is properly one for the jury ( Sorokin v. Food Fair Stores, 51 A.D.2d 592). Defendant Locerto cannot be held negligent as a matter of law because his vehicle hit plaintiff's in the rear ( see, Nikitas v Crailo Motors Corp., 17 A.D.2d 882). Viewing the evidence before the jury in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must, it cannot be said that a verdict in defendants' favor could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence ( Matter of Kornblum Metals Co. v. Intsel Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 376). Therefore, we may not set the jury's verdict aside as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence ( cf. Pettersen v. Curreri, 99 A.D.2d 774; Goehle v. Town of Smithtown, 81 A.D.2d 607, affd 55 N.Y.2d 995). Mollen, P.J., Titone, O'Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.