Wronowski v. Mid-City Shopping Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wronowski v. Mid-City Shopping Center, Inc.

27 A.D.2d 629, 277 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2706

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 629 (Wronowski v. Mid-City Shopping Center, 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

Wronowski v. Mid-City Shopping Center, Inc., 27 A.D.2d 629, 277 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court. Absent any exception to the charge or any pertinent request to charge, appellant’s counsel having indeed affirmatively approved the charge, we find no basis for disturbing the judgment entered upon the verdict of no cause of action in favor of the third-party defendant. The indefensible conduct of plaintiff’s attorney, in large part evoked by the actions of appellant’s attorney, is not to be condoned, but we find that no substantial prejudice was caused thereby. The verdict was not excessive. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Brink, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum by the Court. Absent any exception to the charge or any pertinent request to charge, appellant’s counsel having indeed affirmatively approved the charge, we find no basis for disturbing the judgment entered upon the verdict of no cause of action in favor of the third-party defendant. The indefensible conduct of plaintiff’s attorney, in large part evoked by the actions of appellant’s attorney, is not to be condoned, but we find that no substantial prejudice was caused thereby. The verdict was not excessive. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Brink, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 629, 277 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wronowski-v-mid-city-shopping-center-inc-nyappdiv-1966.