In Galaz v. Sobel & Kraus, Inc., 280 A.D.2d 427 (1st Dept. 2001) the jury found for the plaintiff on liability, and awarded damages for past medical expenses only, but nothing for past and future pain and suffering. In affirming the jury's verdict, the Appellate Division held that the verdict was "not inconsistent, since the jury apparently concluded that plaintiff had suffered an injury as a result of the alleged accident, but that the injury was de minimis and that the plaintiff did not suffer any compensable pain or suffering " (Id. at 624). The appellate court also found the verdict not to be against the weight of the evidence. In arguing that Galaz dictates a denial of the instant motion, defendant ignores a critical distinction. The jury in Galaz, "was presented with conflicting expert testimony and issues respecting plaintiff's credibility. On the record before the Appellate Division, it could not be said that the jury's verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of that evidence" (id., at 624.) In affirming, the Appellate Division did no more than apply the well-settled principle that the resolution of factual disputes by the trial court is entitled to great deference on appeal.