Rankin v. Milazzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rankin v. Milazzo

167 A.D.2d 456, 562 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13997

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 456 (Rankin v. Milazzo) 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

Rankin v. Milazzo, 167 A.D.2d 456, 562 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered December 30, 1988, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

[457]*457The plaintiffs have failed to preserve for appellate review their claim that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could only use the plaintiff John Rankin’s prior pleadings for the limited purpose of impeaching his credibility (see, CPLR 4110-b; Up-Front Indus. v U. S. Indus., 63 NY2d 1004). We decline to reach this claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, Veal v New York City Tr. Auth., 148 AD2d 443). Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Miller and O’Brien, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered December 30, 1988, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

[457]*457The plaintiffs have failed to preserve for appellate review their claim that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could only use the plaintiff John Rankin’s prior pleadings for the limited purpose of impeaching his credibility (see, CPLR 4110-b; Up-Front Indus. v U. S. Indus., 63 NY2d 1004). We decline to reach this claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, Veal v New York City Tr. Auth., 148 AD2d 443). Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 456, 562 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rankin-v-milazzo-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack