Quinn v. 1649 Restaurant Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quinn v. 1649 Restaurant Corp.

18 A.D.3d 281, 795 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5189

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

DecidedMay 12, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 281 (Quinn v. 1649 Restaurant Corp.) 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

Quinn v. 1649 Restaurant Corp., 18 A.D.3d 281, 795 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered June 10, 2004, upon a jury verdict in defendant’s favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs testimony regarding what defendant’s owner told her defendant’s manager had told him about her husband’s condition the night before his death was properly excluded. Such testimony would have been double hearsay not subject to any exception (see People v Boatwright, 297 AD2d 603 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 533 [2002]; see also People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816 [1988]).

The court’s charge regarding the standard of care when a duty is voluntarily assumed mirrored New York’s Pattern Jury Instructions and was proper as given. There is no authority to suggest that the more specific charge requested by plaintiff was necessary. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered June 10, 2004, upon a jury verdict in defendant’s favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs testimony regarding what defendant’s owner told her defendant’s manager had told him about her husband’s condition the night before his death was properly excluded. Such testimony would have been double hearsay not subject to any exception (see People v Boatwright, 297 AD2d 603 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 533 [2002]; see also People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816 [1988]).

The court’s charge regarding the standard of care when a duty is voluntarily assumed mirrored New York’s Pattern Jury Instructions and was proper as given. There is no authority to suggest that the more specific charge requested by plaintiff was necessary. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 281, 795 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-1649-restaurant-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack