Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (David Gross, J.), entered September 29, 2004. The judgment, entered upon an order granting defendant's motion to set aside the jury verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this negligence action involving a dispute between neighbors, the injured plaintiff and his wife testified that the defendant came over to their house to complain about plaintiffs' grandson. They stated that the argument started inside their house and that defendant, at Mrs. Warrington's request, left the house and stood on the front stoop. The stoop had four steps and plaintiffs stood on the highest step, which was the
landing. The defendant stood one step below them, yelling and screaming at plaintiffs, while placing his finger directly in front of Mrs. Warrington's nose in a threatening manner. Mr. Warrington raised his hand in front of defendant's finger. Plaintiffs testified that defendant then grabbed Mr. Warrington's arm and "whipped" him off the top step slamming him onto the sidewalk. Defendant testified that Mr. Warrington raised his hand apparently to slap or push him. When defendant saw the hand coming, he moved back causing Mr. Warrington to miss and lose his balance. As a result, Mr. Warrington fell off the top step injuring himself.

The jury found in favor of plaintiffs and defendant moved to set aside the verdict. The motion was granted and judgment was entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint. The instant appeal by plaintiffs ensued.

We note that plaintiffs' cause of action based on an intentional tort was withdrawn. Accordingly, the jury could find defendant liable, if at all, solely on a theory of negligence. However, plaintiffs' version of the incident only supported a finding of an intentional act, rather than negligence. Defendant's version of the incident likewise failed to permit a finding of [*2]negligence on defendant's part. In Soto v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 487, 492 [2006]), the court stated:
"A jury verdict rests on legally insufficient evidence where there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [individuals] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial' (Cohen v Hallmark Cards (45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978])."
In view of the foregoing, the court properly granted defendant's motion to set aside the verdict and dismiss the complaint (Diversified Fuel Carriers Corp. v Coastal Oil NY, 280 AD2d 448 [2001]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 24, 2007