From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wong v. Negron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2002
294 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-11087

Argued April 8, 2002.

May 8, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), entered October 20, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants Carlos Negron and Supreme Trucking, Inc., and against them, dismissing the action.

Fuchsberg Fuchsberg, New York, N.Y. (Ronald Yang of counsel), for appellants.

McElfish Associates, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Suzanne M. Billig, Raymond D. McElfish, and Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent Carlos Negron.

Marshall Bellard, Garden City, N.Y. (William T. Bellard and Gilbert J. Hardy of counsel), for respondent Supreme Trucking, Inc.

Before: RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN, COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs' general objection at trial to admission of the prior statements of a defense witness was insufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review (see Balsz v. A and T Bus Co., 252 A.D.2d 458; Weissman v. New York Tel Co., 178 A.D.2d 353). In any event, the error, if any, was harmless.

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wong v. Negron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2002
294 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Wong v. Negron

Case Details

Full title:YUNG WONG, et al., appellants, v. CARLOS NEGRON, et al., respondents, et…

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

Date published: May 8, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 714

Citing Cases

Schlesinger v. City of New York

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiffs' contention that the trial court erred in…

Lamorte v. CFG Profile, Inc.

The plaintiffs asserted in their motion that the Supreme Court erred in its charge to the jury by omitting…