From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meyers v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2000
273 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued May 5, 2000.

July 26, 2000.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered August 12, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Huwel Mulhern, Franklin Square, N.Y. (George A. Huwel of counsel), for appellant.

Epstein, Hill, Grammatico Gann, East Setauket, N.Y. (Diane K. Farrell of counsel), for respondents.

Before: THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ANITA R. FLORIO, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's claim that the defense counsel's comments during summation were prejudicial and deprived her of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review since she failed to object to the comments. In any event, when considered within the context of the entire summation, the defense counsel's comments "were within the bounds of the wide latitude allowed to counsel in summation " (Schneer v. Bellantoni, 250 A.D.2d 666; see, Heberer v. Nassau Hosp., 119 A.D.2d 729; Caraballo v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 580).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Meyers v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2000
273 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Meyers v. Levine

Case Details

Full title:DEBORAH ALLENDE MEYERS, APPELLANT, v. IRWIN LEVINE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

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

Date published: Jul 26, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 742

Citing Cases

Vazquez v. Costco Companies, Inc.

There is no proof that Wendell's decision not to testify was the product of a guilty conscience rather than…

Shallenberger v. First State Bank

The provision restricting banking corporations and those providing for the guaranty of deposits are not so…