Rosenberg v. Lorraine Manor, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Lorraine Manor, Inc.

19 A.D.2d 733, 242 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3422

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 733 (Rosenberg v. Lorraine Manor, 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

Rosenberg v. Lorraine Manor, Inc., 19 A.D.2d 733, 242 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 29, 1961 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants. Judgment affirmed, with costs. By stipulation of the parties set forth in the record, the appeal has been limited to the question of whether it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to grant two requests to charge with respect to the violation of rule 2.16.13 of the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York. Neither rule 2.16.13 nor any other specific rule of the said hoard was asserted in plaintiff’s complaint or in his bill of particulars; nor was any such rule invoked at any time during the trial until the requests to charge were made. Nor was any specific provision of statute asserted until, on the argument of a motion to dismiss, reliance was placed on section 200 of the Labor Law. The record discloses that reference to said section was included in the charge to the jury, with appropriate explanation. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, 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 injury, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 29, 1961 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants. Judgment affirmed, with costs. By stipulation of the parties set forth in the record, the appeal has been limited to the question of whether it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to grant two requests to charge with respect to the violation of rule 2.16.13 of the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York. Neither rule 2.16.13 nor any other specific rule of the said hoard was asserted in plaintiff’s complaint or in his bill of particulars; nor was any such rule invoked at any time during the trial until the requests to charge were made. Nor was any specific provision of statute asserted until, on the argument of a motion to dismiss, reliance was placed on section 200 of the Labor Law. The record discloses that reference to said section was included in the charge to the jury, with appropriate explanation. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 733, 242 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-lorraine-manor-inc-nyappdiv-1963.