Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Plaintiff's primary contention at trial was that defendant's decedent removed an excessive amount of cartilage from her nose when he performed a submucous resection. Given the sharp conflict between the respective experts called by plaintiff and defendant concerning, inter alia, whether the pathology report indicated that a normal or an egregiously abnormal amount of cartilage had been removed, and whether infection could have remained in plaintiff's nose after the operation, it cannot be said that "`the evidence preponderated so greatly in plaintiff's favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence'" ( Tannenbaum v. Mandell, 51 A.D.2d 593; see Siegel, N Y Prac, § 406). Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.