Manzella v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manzella v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

203 A.D.2d 336, 612 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3718

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

DecidedApril 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 336 (Manzella v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) 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

Manzella v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 203 A.D.2d 336, 612 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered April 8, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in giving the missing witness charge in question is unpreserved for appel[337]*337late review (see, CPLR 4110-b, 5501 [a] [3]), and we find no basis to consider it in the exercise of our discretion. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered April 8, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in giving the missing witness charge in question is unpreserved for appel[337]*337late review (see, CPLR 4110-b, 5501 [a] [3]), and we find no basis to consider it in the exercise of our discretion. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 336, 612 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manzella-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-nyappdiv-1994.