From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McArthur v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 3, 2000
274 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted March 28, 2000.

July 3, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated May 17, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the total sum of $52,617.97.

O'Connor, O'Connor, Mayberger First, P.C., Albany, N Y (Francis J. Brennan of counsel), for appellant.

Vasti Sears, P.C., Pleasant Valley, N.Y. (David A. Sears of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

No proper foundation was laid for admission of a copy of the videotape in lieu of the missing original (see, Dipace v. Hertz Corp., 30 A.D.2d 515).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

McArthur v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 3, 2000
274 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

McArthur v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET MCARTHUR, RESPONDENT, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., APPELLANT, ET…

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

Date published: Jul 3, 2000

Citations

274 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 760

Citing Cases

Zegarelli v. Hughes

I discern no basis in the record for the court's conclusion that the videotape was not properly authenticated…

PDG Psychological, P.C. v. State Farm Ins. Co.

At trial, a foundation for the admissibility of each exhibit must be laid. McArthur v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,…