Opinion
05-10-2017
Vincent MELO, et al., appellants, v. Howard BYRNS, respondent.
Justin S. White, Williamsville, NY, for appellants. Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, NY (John M. Denby of counsel), for respondent.
Justin S. White, Williamsville, NY, for appellants.
Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, NY (John M. Denby of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated May 18, 2015, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiffs' appendix is sufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issue raised by them on the instant appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.10.2[c][1]; CPLR 5528[a][5] ; Washington Mut. Bank v. Wade, 119 A.D.3d 930, 931, 989 N.Y.S.2d 857 ). Accordingly, we decline to dismiss the appeal.
However, contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court's response to the subject jury note was proper and stated the law as applicable to the particular facts at issue (see Green v. Downs, 27 N.Y.2d 205, 208, 316 N.Y.S.2d 221, 265 N.E.2d 68 ; Rowe v. New York City Tr. Auth., 295 A.D.2d 333, 334, 742 N.Y.S.2d 910 ; Kravis v. Horn, 254 A.D.2d 462, 463, 678 N.Y.S.2d 784 ; Martino v. Triangle Rubber Co., 249 A.D.2d 454, 455, 671 N.Y.S.2d 524 ; see generally PJI 1:40 ).
RIVERA, J.P., HALL, LaSALLE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.