From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manzella v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 11, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs' contention that the court erred in giving the missing witness charge in question is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4110-b, 5501 [a] [3]), and we find no basis to consider it in the exercise of our discretion. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Manzella v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Manzella v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH MANZELLA et al., Appellants, v. GREAT ATLANTIC PACIFIC TEA CO. et…

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

Date published: Apr 11, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 918

Citing Cases

Everett v. Timmins

The record does not indicate that plaintiffs objected or took exception to the court's decision to give a…