Opinion
1045 CA 19–00120
11-15-2019
Nancy J. BRADY and Patrick J. Brady, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Timothy J. CONTANGELO, Defendant–Respondent.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS LETRO, BUFFALO (CAREY C. BEYER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS. CHELUS, HERDZIK, SPEYER & MONTE, P.C., BUFFALO (DANIEL J. CERCONE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS LETRO, BUFFALO (CAREY C. BEYER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS.
CHELUS, HERDZIK, SPEYER & MONTE, P.C., BUFFALO (DANIEL J. CERCONE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an amended order that denied their posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) seeking to set aside the jury verdict and grant a new trial. Plaintiffs contend that Supreme Court's supplemental jury charge on negligence was erroneous. Initially, plaintiffs preserved their contention for our review only in part, because only some of the specific grounds now raised on appeal were raised before the jury began deliberations (see CPLR 4110–b ; McFadden v. Oneida, Ltd., 93 A.D.3d 1309, 1310, 941 N.Y.S.2d 417 [4th Dept. 2012] ). In any event, " ‘the charge as a whole adequately conveyed the proper legal principles’ " ( Garris v. K–Mart, Inc., 37 A.D.3d 1065, 1066, 829 N.Y.S.2d 333 [4th Dept. 2007] ; see generally Brady v. Contangelo, 148 A.D.3d 1544, 1545, 50 N.Y.S.3d 690 [4th Dept. 2017] ).