Piracci v. Karnavas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piracci v. Karnavas

11 A.D.3d 1030, 782 N.Y.S.2d 196, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11377

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 1030 (Piracci v. Karnavas) 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

Piracci v. Karnavas, 11 A.D.3d 1030, 782 N.Y.S.2d 196, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered March 14, 2003. The order denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict in a personal injury action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: The sole contention of plaintiff on appeal is that he was denied a fair trial based on comments made by [1031]*1031Supreme Court at trial and that the court therefore erred in denying his motion seeking to set aside the jury verdict rendered in favor of defendants. Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs contention is preserved for our review, we nevertheless conclude that it is lacking in merit. The comments at issue appear to have been made in order to expedite the trial and “were not so egregious as to warrant a new trial” (Olezeski v Finger Lakes-Seneca Coop. Ins. Co., 218 AD2d 841, 842 [1995]). Furthermore, we note that the court mitigated any prejudice to plaintiff by instructing the jury that it “must not conclude from any rulings or anything that I have said during the course of the trial that I favor any party to this lawsuit” (see generally id.). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered March 14, 2003. The order denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict in a personal injury action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: The sole contention of plaintiff on appeal is that he was denied a fair trial based on comments made by [1031]*1031Supreme Court at trial and that the court therefore erred in denying his motion seeking to set aside the jury verdict rendered in favor of defendants. Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs contention is preserved for our review, we nevertheless conclude that it is lacking in merit. The comments at issue appear to have been made in order to expedite the trial and “were not so egregious as to warrant a new trial” (Olezeski v Finger Lakes-Seneca Coop. Ins. Co., 218 AD2d 841, 842 [1995]). Furthermore, we note that the court mitigated any prejudice to plaintiff by instructing the jury that it “must not conclude from any rulings or anything that I have said during the course of the trial that I favor any party to this lawsuit” (see generally id.). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 1030, 782 N.Y.S.2d 196, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piracci-v-karnavas-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack