Ladesso v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ladesso v. City of New York

229 A.D.2d 565, 646 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8233

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

DecidedJuly 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 229 A.D.2d 565 (Ladesso v. City of New York) 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

Ladesso v. City of New York, 229 A.D.2d 565, 646 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), entered April 18, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

[566]*566Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s contention that the court erred in delivering a missing witness charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4110-b, 4017, 5501 [a] [3]; De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (cf., Sluzar v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 223 AD2d 785).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find they are without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), entered April 18, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

[566]*566Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s contention that the court erred in delivering a missing witness charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4110-b, 4017, 5501 [a] [3]; De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (cf., Sluzar v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 223 AD2d 785).

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find they are without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 565, 646 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ladesso-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack