Klein v. Hamper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. Hamper

193 A.D.2d 720, 598 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4937

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

DecidedMay 17, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 720 (Klein v. Hamper) 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

Klein v. Hamper, 193 A.D.2d 720, 598 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered December 19, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the court failed to include a portion of its original charge when it responded to the jury’s request for reinstruction on the "green light ruling”. We find that the omission in the supplemental instructions did not constitute reversible error as the original charge advised the jury of the proper principles (see, e.g., Goldberg v Wirtosko, 182 AD2d 350), and there is no indication that the jury was confused or dissatisfied after the court’s reinstruction (cf., Albergo v Deer Park Meat Farms, 138 AD2d 656).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered December 19, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the court failed to include a portion of its original charge when it responded to the jury’s request for reinstruction on the "green light ruling”. We find that the omission in the supplemental instructions did not constitute reversible error as the original charge advised the jury of the proper principles (see, e.g., Goldberg v Wirtosko, 182 AD2d 350), and there is no indication that the jury was confused or dissatisfied after the court’s reinstruction (cf., Albergo v Deer Park Meat Farms, 138 AD2d 656).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 720, 598 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-hamper-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack