Schneiderman v. Empire State Building Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schneiderman v. Empire State Building Ass'n

52 A.D.2d 597, 382 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12208

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

DecidedApril 12, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 597 (Schneiderman v. Empire State Building Ass'n) 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

Schneiderman v. Empire State Building Ass'n, 52 A.D.2d 597, 382 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 30, 1975, in favor of defendants, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion the charge, as a whole, was proper since the trial court related the applicable principles of law to the specific claims and to the evidence in the case. The refusal to grant plaintiffs’ request with regard to notice of the alleged dangerous condition and the charge as given did not deprive them of a substantial right accorded by law (see Taggart v Vogel, 3 NY2d 58). Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting certain special questions to the jury. We have examined plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, 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 injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 30, 1975, in favor of defendants, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion the charge, as a whole, was proper since the trial court related the applicable principles of law to the specific claims and to the evidence in the case. The refusal to grant plaintiffs’ request with regard to notice of the alleged dangerous condition and the charge as given did not deprive them of a substantial right accorded by law (see Taggart v Vogel, 3 NY2d 58). Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting certain special questions to the jury. We have examined plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 597, 382 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneiderman-v-empire-state-building-assn-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack