From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stern v. Waldbaum, Inc., No. 10

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 1985
109 A.D.2d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

March 11, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

Defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The errors alleged on appeal were not properly preserved for review by clear and definitive objection after the trial court completed its charge to the jury. Though plaintiffs' counsel asserted a general, nonspecific and ambiguous objection in a timely manner, he failed to clarify such objection when requested to do so by the trial court. Such clarification did not appear in this case until plaintiffs made their postverdict motion. Accordingly, the objection to the charge is not properly before us as a matter of law ( see, CPLR 5501 [a] [3]; 4404). Furthermore, were we to take cognizance of the claims raised on appeal, in the interest of justice, we would affirm as well. The trial court's instruction to the jury was well balanced and proper and, as it observed in its short-form order and memorandum decision from which plaintiffs have appealed, the jury's determination is well supported by the evidence adduced at trial. Weinstein, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stern v. Waldbaum, Inc., No. 10

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 1985
109 A.D.2d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Stern v. Waldbaum, Inc., No. 10

Case Details

Full title:ANN STERN et al., Appellants, v. WALDBAUM, INC., No. 10, et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 1985

Citations

109 A.D.2d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Schlecter v. Abbondadello

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs. Contrary to the…

Ryan v. New York City Hlt. Hospitals Corp.

The appellant contends that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the appellant could be held…