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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 11, 1994·Published

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.

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

203 A.D.2d 336 (Manzella v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.