Meyers v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyers v. Levine

273 A.D.2d 449, 711 N.Y.S.2d 742, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7356

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

DecidedJune 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 449 (Meyers v. Levine) 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

Meyers v. Levine, 273 A.D.2d 449, 711 N.Y.S.2d 742, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered August 12, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs claim that the defense counsel’s comments during summation were prejudicial and deprived her of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review since she failed to object to the comments. In any event, when considered within the context of the entire summation, the defense counsel’s comments “were within the bounds of the wide latitude allowed to counsel in summation” (Schneer v Bellantoni, 250 AD2d 666, 667; see, Heberer v Nassau Hosp., 119 AD2d 729; Caraballo v City of New York, 86 AD2d 580).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, 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, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered August 12, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs claim that the defense counsel’s comments during summation were prejudicial and deprived her of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review since she failed to object to the comments. In any event, when considered within the context of the entire summation, the defense counsel’s comments “were within the bounds of the wide latitude allowed to counsel in summation” (Schneer v Bellantoni, 250 AD2d 666, 667; see, Heberer v Nassau Hosp., 119 AD2d 729; Caraballo v City of New York, 86 AD2d 580).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 449, 711 N.Y.S.2d 742, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyers-v-levine-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack