Shoken v. Meneghini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shoken v. Meneghini

114 A.D.2d 497, 494 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53196

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 497 (Shoken v. Meneghini) 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

Shoken v. Meneghini, 114 A.D.2d 497, 494 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morton, J.), dated February 10, 1984, which, upon a jury verdict on liability, determined that plaintiffs were 90% liable and defendant was 10% liable.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.

No exceptions or objections having been taken to the court’s charge to the jury, any issues with respect thereto were not preserved for appellate review (CPLR 5501 [a] [3]). In any event, examination of the charge does not show it to have been so patently erroneous, confusing or inadequate as to require reversal and a new trial. We find plaintiffs’ other contentions to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, 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., plaintiffs appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morton, J.), dated February 10, 1984, which, upon a jury verdict on liability, determined that plaintiffs were 90% liable and defendant was 10% liable.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.

No exceptions or objections having been taken to the court’s charge to the jury, any issues with respect thereto were not preserved for appellate review (CPLR 5501 [a] [3]). In any event, examination of the charge does not show it to have been so patently erroneous, confusing or inadequate as to require reversal and a new trial. We find plaintiffs’ other contentions to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 497, 494 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoken-v-meneghini-nyappdiv-1985.