Elhanafy v. Saks Fifth Avenue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elhanafy v. Saks Fifth Avenue

241 A.D.2d 344, 660 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7179

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D.2d 344 (Elhanafy v. Saks Fifth Avenue) 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

Elhanafy v. Saks Fifth Avenue, 241 A.D.2d 344, 660 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ha[345]*345rold Tompkins, J., and a jury), entered February 7, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiff’s brief, is in favor of defendant and against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The photographs repeatedly excluded by the trial court were properly rejected, since there is no indication that any of them was a true, fair or accurate representation of the doorway, and particularly of the hole that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries, on the morning of the accident (see, Moore v Leaseway Transp. Corp., 49 NY2d 720, 723). Prior to this appeal, plaintiff did not raise his contention that the trial court conveyed a negative impression of plaintiff’s case to the jury and we find that the trial court did not deny plaintiff a fair trial (see, Camperlengo v Lenox Hill Hosp., 239 AD2d 150). We find no error in the charge. We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ha[345]*345rold Tompkins, J., and a jury), entered February 7, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiff’s brief, is in favor of defendant and against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The photographs repeatedly excluded by the trial court were properly rejected, since there is no indication that any of them was a true, fair or accurate representation of the doorway, and particularly of the hole that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries, on the morning of the accident (see, Moore v Leaseway Transp. Corp., 49 NY2d 720, 723). Prior to this appeal, plaintiff did not raise his contention that the trial court conveyed a negative impression of plaintiff’s case to the jury and we find that the trial court did not deny plaintiff a fair trial (see, Camperlengo v Lenox Hill Hosp., 239 AD2d 150). We find no error in the charge. We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 344, 660 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elhanafy-v-saks-fifth-avenue-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack