Franklin v. Nestved

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franklin v. Nestved

225 A.D.2d 1026, 639 N.Y.2d 237

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1026 (Franklin v. Nestved) 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

Franklin v. Nestved, 225 A.D.2d 1026, 639 N.Y.2d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Plaintiffs failed to preserve for our review their argument that the jury instruction on proximate cause erroneously implied that there could be only one proximate cause of plaintiff Gayle J. Franklin’s injuries (see, Liebgott v City of New York, 213 AD2d 606; Frasier v McIlduff, 161 AD2d 856, 859-860). Plaintiffs failed to object to the jury instruction, and indeed, argued on summation that the accident was the only cause of the alleged injuries, [1027]*1027while defendants argued that the alleged injuries were exaggerated. This case does not present a "close issue of proximate cause” that might otherwise warrant the exercise of our discretion to reverse (Capicchioni v Morrissey, 205 AD2d 959, 961). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Serious Injury.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiffs failed to preserve for our review their argument that the jury instruction on proximate cause erroneously implied that there could be only one proximate cause of plaintiff Gayle J. Franklin’s injuries (see, Liebgott v City of New York, 213 AD2d 606; Frasier v McIlduff, 161 AD2d 856, 859-860). Plaintiffs failed to object to the jury instruction, and indeed, argued on summation that the accident was the only cause of the alleged injuries, [1027]*1027while defendants argued that the alleged injuries were exaggerated. This case does not present a "close issue of proximate cause” that might otherwise warrant the exercise of our discretion to reverse (Capicchioni v Morrissey, 205 AD2d 959, 961). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Serious Injury.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1026, 639 N.Y.2d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-nestved-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack