Murphy v. Waldbaum, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Waldbaum, Inc.

228 A.D.2d 156, 643 N.Y.2d 984, 643 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6357

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

DecidedJune 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 156 (Murphy v. Waldbaum, Inc.) 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

Murphy v. Waldbaum, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 156, 643 N.Y.2d 984, 643 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the case on a theory of res ipsa loquitur is not preserved for appellate review (CPLR 4110-b; see also, Zito v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 122 AD2d 499, 500-501; cf., La Rocca v City of New York, 104 AD2d 753, 754). Counsel neither registered a specific exception to the court’s refusal to charge this theory at the charge conference nor interposed an objection subsequent to the delivery of the charge and before the jury retired. In any case, plaintiff failed to establish that the incident was "not * * * due to any voluntary action or contribution on [his] part” (Wen-Yu Chang v Woolworth Co., 196 AD2d 708), as is required before a party is entitled to a charge on res ipsa loquitur.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions, including that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the case on a theory of res ipsa loquitur is not preserved for appellate review (CPLR 4110-b; see also, Zito v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 122 AD2d 499, 500-501; cf., La Rocca v City of New York, 104 AD2d 753, 754). Counsel neither registered a specific exception to the court’s refusal to charge this theory at the charge conference nor interposed an objection subsequent to the delivery of the charge and before the jury retired. In any case, plaintiff failed to establish that the incident was "not * * * due to any voluntary action or contribution on [his] part” (Wen-Yu Chang v Woolworth Co., 196 AD2d 708), as is required before a party is entitled to a charge on res ipsa loquitur.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions, including that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 156, 643 N.Y.2d 984, 643 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-waldbaum-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack