From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prunchak v. Palumbo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 29, 1995
219 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

September 29, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Sprague, J.

Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict of no cause of action in favor of defendants. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence and is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 498). Plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the 1964 New York State Building Code was not properly preserved for our review by objection to the charge as given (see, Bichler v Lilly Co., 55 N.Y.2d 571, 583). The court's refusal to charge the jury that a person may assume that the sidewalk over which he or she is travelling is in a safe condition does not require reversal. The jury found that defendant was not negligent and thus never reached the issue of comparative negligence.

We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised by plaintiff and conclude that they are without merit.


Summaries of

Prunchak v. Palumbo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 29, 1995
219 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Prunchak v. Palumbo

Case Details

Full title:JUDY A. PRUNCHAK et al., Appellants, v. ANTHONY M. PALUMBO et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 29, 1995

Citations

219 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 1007

Citing Cases

Wright v. Saeed Deli Grocery

We disagree. The jury concluded that defendants were not negligent, and thus they never reached the issue of…