McKim v. Frobar Investment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKim v. Frobar Investment Co.

204 A.D.2d 609, 614 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5552

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

DecidedMay 23, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 609 (McKim v. Frobar Investment 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

McKim v. Frobar Investment Co., 204 A.D.2d 609, 614 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), dated January 14, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court’s charge to [610]*610the jury was erroneous and denied her a fair trial. However, none of the alleged errors are preserved for appellate review. In any event, the charge as a whole properly instructed the jury on the applicable principles of law (see, Fleischer v Melmarkets, Inc., 174 AD2d 647, 648; Timmons v Hecker, 110 AD2d 762) and, thus, provides no basis for a reversal of the verdict. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Altman, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), dated January 14, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court’s charge to [610]*610the jury was erroneous and denied her a fair trial. However, none of the alleged errors are preserved for appellate review. In any event, the charge as a whole properly instructed the jury on the applicable principles of law (see, Fleischer v Melmarkets, Inc., 174 AD2d 647, 648; Timmons v Hecker, 110 AD2d 762) and, thus, provides no basis for a reversal of the verdict. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 609, 614 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckim-v-frobar-investment-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack