Chase Manhattan Bank v. Kalikow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Kalikow

180 A.D.2d 554

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 554 (Chase Manhattan Bank v. Kalikow) 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

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Kalikow, 180 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, J.), entered November 2, 1990, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The erroneous submission to the jury of a digest of exhibits prepared by plaintiff, which had not been introduced into evidence, was not prejudicial, the court having issued a curative instruction that the digest was not to be given any consideration. Since the digest was an essentially "neutral” compilation that simply listed various documents, it is hard to conceive of any prejudice that would not have been rectified by the curative instruction.

We have considered the remaining arguments, including those raised as to the verdict sheet, and as to the relevance of the amount of counsel fees expended by defendants, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, J.), entered November 2, 1990, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The erroneous submission to the jury of a digest of exhibits prepared by plaintiff, which had not been introduced into evidence, was not prejudicial, the court having issued a curative instruction that the digest was not to be given any consideration. Since the digest was an essentially "neutral” compilation that simply listed various documents, it is hard to conceive of any prejudice that would not have been rectified by the curative instruction.

We have considered the remaining arguments, including those raised as to the verdict sheet, and as to the relevance of the amount of counsel fees expended by defendants, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-manhattan-bank-v-kalikow-nyappdiv-1992.