From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

London v. Lepley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 1999
259 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 9, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).


Plaintiff waived her right to a six-person jury by expressly consenting to the use of a 12-person jury, and we perceive no public policy invalidating such a waiver ( cf., Arizmendi v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 753). Plaintiff's claim that the court should have instructed the jury on "significant disfigurement" is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not request such instruction, did not object to the charge as given and did not object to the contents of the verdict sheet submitted to the jury (CPLR 4110-b; Calabrese v. Chan, 244 A.D.2d 376). In any event, a review of the record reveals that plaintiff presented no evidence, of significant disfigurement.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

London v. Lepley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 1999
259 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

London v. Lepley

Case Details

Full title:ROBIN LONDON, Appellant, v. CHARLES R. LEPLEY et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 785

Citing Cases

Grace v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

However, defendant concedes that it failed to object to the verdict sheet. Thus, defendant failed to preserve…