Stolzenberg v. Wanamaker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stolzenberg v. Wanamaker

19 A.D.2d 634, 241 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3649

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

DecidedJune 10, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 634 (Stolzenberg v. Wanamaker) 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

Stolzenberg v. Wanamaker, 19 A.D.2d 634, 241 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff (a pedestrian) as the result of an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, entered October 13, 1960 after trial upon a jury’s verdict in favor of defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the trial court’s charge concerning the respective duties and liabilities of drivers of vehicles and of pedestrians was adequate. By reason of plaintiff’s failure to take exception to the charge and to the court’s rulings on requests to charge, the plaintiff is now bound by the charge and the rulings, and the questions sought to be raised on this appeal concerning them are not preserved for review (Kluttz v. Citron, 2N Y 2d 379; Brown v. Du Frey, IN Y 2d 190; Harrington v. Kedem Beatty Corp., 13 A D 2d 1027; Brennan v. Moore-McCormach Lines, 3 A D 2d 1006; Civ. Prae. Act, § 446). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, 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 sustained by plaintiff (a pedestrian) as the result of an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, entered October 13, 1960 after trial upon a jury’s verdict in favor of defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the trial court’s charge concerning the respective duties and liabilities of drivers of vehicles and of pedestrians was adequate. By reason of plaintiff’s failure to take exception to the charge and to the court’s rulings on requests to charge, the plaintiff is now bound by the charge and the rulings, and the questions sought to be raised on this appeal concerning them are not preserved for review (Kluttz v. Citron, 2N Y 2d 379; Brown v. Du Frey, IN Y 2d 190; Harrington v. Kedem Beatty Corp., 13 A D 2d 1027; Brennan v. Moore-McCormach Lines, 3 A D 2d 1006; Civ. Prae. Act, § 446). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 634, 241 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stolzenberg-v-wanamaker-nyappdiv-1963.