Camperlengo v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camperlengo v. Lenox Hill Hospital

239 A.D.2d 150, 657 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4637

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

DecidedMay 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 150 (Camperlengo v. Lenox Hill Hospital) 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

Camperlengo v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 239 A.D.2d 150, 657 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 14, 1995, which, upon jury verdict, dismissed the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs contentions that the Trial Judge willfully acted to sabotage her case and ensure a defense verdict are unpreserved for appellate review, since plaintiff did not register that complaint, in any form, prior to rendition of the verdict (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 56; Papa v City of New York, 194 AD2d 527, 530, lv denied 82 NY2d 918). We do not find any fundamental error warranting reversal. Viewing the trial as a whole, the Trial Judge did not deprive plaintiff of a fair trial (cf., Biener v City of New York, 47 AD2d 520, 521; Schrager v New York Univ., 227 AD2d 189). Plaintiff’s contentions concerning defense counsel’s summation are also unpreserved. We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 14, 1995, which, upon jury verdict, dismissed the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs contentions that the Trial Judge willfully acted to sabotage her case and ensure a defense verdict are unpreserved for appellate review, since plaintiff did not register that complaint, in any form, prior to rendition of the verdict (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 56; Papa v City of New York, 194 AD2d 527, 530, lv denied 82 NY2d 918). We do not find any fundamental error warranting reversal. Viewing the trial as a whole, the Trial Judge did not deprive plaintiff of a fair trial (cf., Biener v City of New York, 47 AD2d 520, 521; Schrager v New York Univ., 227 AD2d 189). Plaintiff’s contentions concerning defense counsel’s summation are also unpreserved. We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 150, 657 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camperlengo-v-lenox-hill-hospital-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack