London v. Lepley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

London v. Lepley

259 A.D.2d 298, 684 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2387

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 298 (London v. Lepley) 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

London v. Lepley, 259 A.D.2d 298, 684 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 6, 1998, dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict finding that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff waived her right to a six-person jury by expressly [299]*299consenting to the use of a 12-person jury, and we perceive no public policy invalidating such a waiver (cf., Arizmendi v City of New York, 56 NY2d 753). Plaintiff’s claim that the court should have instructed the jury on “significant disfigurement” is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not request such instruction, did not object to the charge as given and did not object to the contents of the verdict sheet submitted to the jury (CPLR 4110-b; Calabrese v Chan, 244 AD2d 376). In any event, a review of the record reveals that plaintiff presented no evidence of significant disfigurement. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Andidas, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 6, 1998, dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict finding that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff waived her right to a six-person jury by expressly [299]*299consenting to the use of a 12-person jury, and we perceive no public policy invalidating such a waiver (cf., Arizmendi v City of New York, 56 NY2d 753). Plaintiff’s claim that the court should have instructed the jury on “significant disfigurement” is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not request such instruction, did not object to the charge as given and did not object to the contents of the verdict sheet submitted to the jury (CPLR 4110-b; Calabrese v Chan, 244 AD2d 376). In any event, a review of the record reveals that plaintiff presented no evidence of significant disfigurement. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Andidas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 298, 684 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/london-v-lepley-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack