Carlo Shipping Intl., Inc. v. Doumbia

73 Misc. 3d 132(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50984(U)
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 2021
Docket570111/21
StatusUnpublished

This text of 73 Misc. 3d 132(A) (Carlo Shipping Intl., Inc. v. Doumbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carlo Shipping Intl., Inc. v. Doumbia, 73 Misc. 3d 132(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50984(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Carlo Shipping Intl., Inc. v Doumbia (2021 NY Slip Op 50984(U)) [*1]

Carlo Shipping Intl., Inc. v Doumbia
2021 NY Slip Op 50984(U) [73 Misc 3d 132(A)]
Decided on October 20, 2021
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on October 20, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., McShan, Hagler, JJ.
570111/21

Carlo Shipping International, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Sekou Doumbia and Central Auto Sales, Defendants-Respondents.


Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered February 6, 2020, which denied its motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

Per Curiam.

Order (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered February 6, 2020, affirmed.

Based upon the evidence presented at the nonjury trial, Civil Court found that plaintiff failed to establish any basis for liability or damages against defendants for breach of an agreement to pay the costs of shipping a bus to Dakar, Senegal. Plaintiff then moved for a new trial in the interest of justice, claiming that its trial counsel relied upon an incorrect document and neglected to present the correct legal theory. Civil Court denied the motion and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. A legal error or tactical miscalculation by trial counsel, standing alone, will not ordinarily justify a new trial (see Shafer v Iemma, 184 AD2d 839 [1992]), and we see nothing in the facts and circumstances of this case which would justify our interference in Civil Court's exercise of discretion under CPLR 4404(b).


Where a party fails to adequately prepare for trial he is not entitled to another trial (see Winter v New York Life Ins. Co., 260 App Div 676 [1940], appeal denied 261 App Div 816 [1941]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 20, 2021

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

Related

Winter v. New York Life Insurance
260 A.D. 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)
Shafer v. Iemma
184 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 Misc. 3d 132(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50984(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlo-shipping-intl-inc-v-doumbia-nyappterm-2021.