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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 3, 1997·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ha[345] rold 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] rold 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.

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

241 A.D.2d 344 (Elhanafy v. Saks Fifth Avenue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related