From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rozzoni Design v. Fratelli Ricatto Import

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted January 12, 2000

February 24, 2000

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated August 12, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $23,077.

Law Offices of Arthur Lawrence Alexander, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Evan Inlaw, Yonkers, N.Y. (Evan Inlaw of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant's objection to the court's charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4110-b; De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 306 ; Duane v. City of Yonkers, 262 A.D.2d 600 [2d Dept., June 28, 1999]; Nelson v. City of New Rochelle, 154 A.D.2d 661 ), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see,Scandell v. Salerno, 155 A.D.2d 523 ; Saleh v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 119 A.D.2d 652; cf., Ferreira v. New York City Tr. Auth., 79 A.D.2d 596; Caceres v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 74 A.D.2d 619).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Rozzoni Design v. Fratelli Ricatto Import

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Rozzoni Design v. Fratelli Ricatto Import

Case Details

Full title:ROZZONI DESIGN INC., respondent, v. FRATELLI RICATTO IMPORT EXPORT CO.…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 480

Citing Cases

Rockowitz v. Greenstein

However, this argument is unpreserved for appellate review since the plaintiffs did not request a charge, nor…