Coastal Sheet Metal Corp. v. RJR Mechanical Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coastal Sheet Metal Corp. v. RJR Mechanical Inc.

82 A.D.3d 600, 919 N.Y.2d 162

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 600 (Coastal Sheet Metal Corp. v. RJR Mechanical Inc.) 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

Coastal Sheet Metal Corp. v. RJR Mechanical Inc., 82 A.D.3d 600, 919 N.Y.2d 162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The jury’s finding that plaintiff was owed sums on a contract was well supported by the evidence. Such evidence included, inter alia, plaintiff’s former field supervisor’s testimony, based upon personal knowledge, that the subject work had been completed and the engineer’s finding that the project was “substantially complete.”

Appellants failed to object to the court’s curative instructions [601]*601provided in response to the mention of settlement negotiations at trial. Thus, they are precluded from challenging the sufficiency of these instructions on appeal (see Dennis v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 274 AD2d 802, 803 [2000]). In any event, the court’s prompt and explicit curative instructions sufficiently alleviated any prejudicial effect of the references to settlement discussions. Furthermore, the court’s limited charge as to the permissible inference to be drawn based upon RJR Mechanical Inc.’s principal’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was appropriate (see PJI 1:76).

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

The jury’s finding that plaintiff was owed sums on a contract was well supported by the evidence. Such evidence included, inter alia, plaintiff’s former field supervisor’s testimony, based upon personal knowledge, that the subject work had been completed and the engineer’s finding that the project was “substantially complete.”

Appellants failed to object to the court’s curative instructions [601]*601provided in response to the mention of settlement negotiations at trial. Thus, they are precluded from challenging the sufficiency of these instructions on appeal (see Dennis v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 274 AD2d 802, 803 [2000]). In any event, the court’s prompt and explicit curative instructions sufficiently alleviated any prejudicial effect of the references to settlement discussions. Furthermore, the court’s limited charge as to the permissible inference to be drawn based upon RJR Mechanical Inc.’s principal’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was appropriate (see PJI 1:76).

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 600, 919 N.Y.2d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coastal-sheet-metal-corp-v-rjr-mechanical-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack