Rozzoni Design Inc. v. Fratelli Ricatto Import & Export Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rozzoni Design Inc. v. Fratelli Ricatto Import & Export Co.

269 A.D.2d 517, 704 N.Y.S.2d 480, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1924

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated August 12, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $23,077.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s objection to the court’s charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4110-b; De Long v County of [518]*518Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306; Duane v City of Yonkers, 262 AD2d 600; Nelson v City of New Rochelle, 154 AD2d 661), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, Scandell v Salerno, 155 AD2d 523; Saleh v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 119 AD2d 652; cf., Ferreira v New York City Tr. Auth., 79 AD2d 596; Caceres v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 74 AD2d 619).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated August 12, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $23,077.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s objection to the court’s charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4110-b; De Long v County of [518]*518Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306; Duane v City of Yonkers, 262 AD2d 600; Nelson v City of New Rochelle, 154 AD2d 661), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, Scandell v Salerno, 155 AD2d 523; Saleh v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 119 AD2d 652; cf., Ferreira v New York City Tr. Auth., 79 AD2d 596; Caceres v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 74 AD2d 619).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Rozzoni Design Inc. v. Fratelli Ricatto Import & Export Co., 269 A.D.2d 517, 704 N.Y.S.2d 480, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 517 (Rozzoni Design Inc. v. Fratelli Ricatto Import & Export Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related