Dunne v. Lemberg

54 A.D.2d 955, 388 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14862
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 22, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 955 (Dunne v. Lemberg) 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
Dunne v. Lemberg, 54 A.D.2d 955, 388 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs Tamara and Gloria Dunne appeal from (1) so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 1, 1975, as is in favor of defendant Masse and against them, upon a jury verdict after a trial limited to the issue of liability only, and (2) an order of the same court, dated August 28, 1975, which denied their motion to set aside the verdict insofar as it is in favor of defendant Masse and against them. Interlocutory judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from and order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although the remarks of defendant Masse’s attorney, in summation, with respect to race were highly improper, we concur with the trial court’s determination that such remarks, for which said attorney was quickly admonished and the jury given corrective instructions, did not influence the verdict. The trial herein was remarkably free of any significant error, the verdict is amply supported by the evidence, which presented the jury with a sharp but clear issue of fact, and, [956]*956in our view, appellants’ counsel, in effect, waived his objection to the remarks of defendant Masse’s attorney by not moving for a mistrial until after the jury had returned its verdict in said defendant’s favor (the second defendant, Mr. Lemberg, was found liable to appellants) (see, e.g., Moore v Town of Huntington, 39 AD2d 764). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Titone and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Winant v. Carras
208 A.D.2d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Torrado v. Lutheran Medical Center
198 A.D.2d 346 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Valloni v. Crisona
170 A.D.2d 596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Kamen v. City of New York
169 A.D.2d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Hernandez v. City of New York
156 A.D.2d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Scott v. Mason
155 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Panaro v. General Motors Corp.
122 A.D.2d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Vassura v. Taylor
117 A.D.2d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Brennan v. City of New York
108 A.D.2d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Taylor v. Dayton Suregrip & Shore Co.
64 A.D.2d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Kane v. Zade
63 A.D.2d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Reilly v. Wright
55 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.2d 955, 388 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunne-v-lemberg-nyappdiv-1976.