From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Neill v. Spitzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 10, 1990
160 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

April 10, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Wagner, J.).


We find no error in the trial court's charge on "momentary forgetfulness", which was given at the request of the plaintiff. In any event, any error in the language of the charge as given could not have prejudiced the plaintiff, since the jury never reached the issue of her comparative negligence. Similarly, the court's charge to the jury to consider the negligence of the City of New York, a nonparty, even if error, could not have prejudiced the plaintiff, since the jury never reached the issue of contribution among joint tort-feasors. Nor do we find that any of the other claimed errors warrant reversal.

Concur — Ross, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

O'Neill v. Spitzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 10, 1990
160 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

O'Neill v. Spitzer

Case Details

Full title:MARY O'NEILL, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. M. JAMES SPITZER et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 10, 1990

Citations

160 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
553 N.Y.S.2d 392

Citing Cases

Lebron v. St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center

No such claim was ever raised by any of the parties. Indeed, even if the court had erred in not giving the…

Goldban v. 56th Realty

Plaintiff admits that she saw the tree guard before stepping into it, but that she was momentarily distracted…