Chapman v. Thirty-Ninth St. Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chapman v. Thirty-Ninth St. Realty Corp.

26 A.D.2d 806, 274 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3316

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 806 (Chapman v. Thirty-Ninth St. Realty Corp.) 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

Chapman v. Thirty-Ninth St. Realty Corp., 26 A.D.2d 806, 274 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $42,861 unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. On this appeal the defendants urge that recovery in a cause of action brought under section 205-a of the General Municipal Law would not entitle the plaintiff to recover compensatory damages. However, such contention is not open to defendants on this appeal because they failed to object to the portion of the charge wherein the court did instruct the jury that in finding for the plaintiff it must bring in a verdict for compensatory damages (see CPLE 4017, 5501, subd. [a], par. 3). The defendants’ failure to object to the court’s charge makes that charge the law of the case (see Brown v. Du Frey, 1 N Y 2d 190, 195), and the defendant is bound thereby. Therefore, we need not consider whether the court’s charge in that respect was correct. We find no merit to the defendants’ contention that error was committed with respect to other portions of the charge, and since the evidence fully supported the verdict of the jury, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $42,861 unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. On this appeal the defendants urge that recovery in a cause of action brought under section 205-a of the General Municipal Law would not entitle the plaintiff to recover compensatory damages. However, such contention is not open to defendants on this appeal because they failed to object to the portion of the charge wherein the court did instruct the jury that in finding for the plaintiff it must bring in a verdict for compensatory damages (see CPLE 4017, 5501, subd. [a], par. 3). The defendants’ failure to object to the court’s charge makes that charge the law of the case (see Brown v. Du Frey, 1 N Y 2d 190, 195), and the defendant is bound thereby. Therefore, we need not consider whether the court’s charge in that respect was correct. We find no merit to the defendants’ contention that error was committed with respect to other portions of the charge, and since the evidence fully supported the verdict of the jury, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 806, 274 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-thirty-ninth-st-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack