
    Dennis Cetta et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Coca-Cola Company, Respondent-Appellant, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
    [599 NYS2d 988]
   —In a negligence action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered August 1, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict, is in their favor and against The Coca-Cola Company and The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., in the principal sum of $25,000, and The Coca-Cola Company cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as assessed liability against it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiffs; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from by The Coca-Cola Company, on the law, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against that defendant; and it is further,

Ordered that The Coca-Cola Company is awarded one bill of costs payable by the plaintiffs.

We find that the trial court should have granted The Coca-Cola Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 4401), since no rational basis exists for the conclusion that The Coca-Cola Company had control over the bottling process of The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc. (see, Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div., 49 NY2d 471, 479; Csoka v Bliss, 168 AD2d 664, 665; see also, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Becker v City of New York, 106 AD2d 595, 596-597).

As to the plaintiffs’ appeal, in light of the equivocal evidence regarding the cause of Dennis Cetta’s long-term injuries, it cannot be said that the damage award materially deviated from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (see, CPLR 5501 [c]). In addition, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ request for an adjournment during the course of the trial (see, Matter of Housing Dev. Fund Co. v County of Rockland, 134 AD2d 594; Cromartie v New York City Tr. Auth., 113 AD2d 915, 916).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.  