From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franklin v. Nestved

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs failed to preserve for our review their argument that the jury instruction on proximate cause erroneously implied that there could be only one proximate cause of plaintiff Gayle J. Franklin's injuries ( see, Liebgott v City of New York, 213 A.D.2d 606; Frasier v McIlduff, 161 A.D.2d 856, 859-860). Plaintiffs failed to object to the jury instruction, and indeed, argued on summation that the accident was the only cause of the alleged injuries, while defendants argued that the alleged injuries were exaggerated. This case does not present a "close issue of proximate cause" that might otherwise warrant the exercise of our discretion to reverse ( Capicchioni v Morrissey, 205 A.D.2d 959, 961).


Summaries of

Franklin v. Nestved

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Franklin v. Nestved

Case Details

Full title:GAYLE J. FRANKLIN et al., Appellants, v. ANNE M. NESTVED et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 237

Citing Cases

McClure v. Schindler El. Corp.

) The assessment of the significance of the error will be affected by whether the evidence presented a "close…