Calabrese v. Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calabrese v. Chan

244 A.D.2d 376, 665 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11241

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 376 (Calabrese v. Chan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calabrese v. Chan, 244 A.D.2d 376, 665 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), entered April 17, 1996, as, upon a jury verdict finding that he did not suffer a serious injury, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff’s claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is without merit. It is well settled that a jury verdict will not be set aside absent a showing that the jurors could not have reached their verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Vebeliunas v American Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 156 AD2d 555, 556; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133). A review of the evidence adduced in this case demonstrates that a fair basis existed for the verdict in the defendants’ favor.

The plaintiff’s failure to ask for, or object to the absence of, a “significant” or “consequential” limitation charge during the precharge conference, his failure to object to the charge as given at any time before the jury commenced deliberations, and his failure to object to the contents of the verdict sheet submitted to the jury renders any claim of error in the charge or the verdict sheet unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4110-b; De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306; Figueroa v Waldbaum’s Inc., 222 AD2d 483). We are not persuaded, under the circumstances of this case, that review in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction is warranted.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), entered April 17, 1996, as, upon a jury verdict finding that he did not suffer a serious injury, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff’s claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is without merit. It is well settled that a jury verdict will not be set aside absent a showing that the jurors could not have reached their verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Vebeliunas v American Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 156 AD2d 555, 556; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133). A review of the evidence adduced in this case demonstrates that a fair basis existed for the verdict in the defendants’ favor.

The plaintiff’s failure to ask for, or object to the absence of, a “significant” or “consequential” limitation charge during the precharge conference, his failure to object to the charge as given at any time before the jury commenced deliberations, and his failure to object to the contents of the verdict sheet submitted to the jury renders any claim of error in the charge or the verdict sheet unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4110-b; De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306; Figueroa v Waldbaum’s Inc., 222 AD2d 483). We are not persuaded, under the circumstances of this case, that review in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction is warranted.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 376, 665 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calabrese-v-chan-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack