Legal Opinion

Kordasiewicz v. Buchholz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 30, 1997No. Appeal No. 1Published

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs failed to object to the verdict as inconsistent before the jury was discharged, when Supreme Court could have taken corrective action. "Because the issue was not raised until long after any steps could have been taken by the trial court to cure the inconsistency, it cannot serve as a predicate for a reversal” (Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 806, rearg denied 55 NY2d 1039; see, Stangl v Compass Transp., 221 AD2d 909; Gross v Fontano, 206 AD2d 505). To the extent that plaintiffs’ posttrial motion may be construed as alleging…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Barry v. ManglassNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. Peck v. Tired Iron Transport, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  3. Marra v. Hensonville Frozen Food Lockers Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  4. Stangl v. Compass TransportatioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  5. Gross v. FontanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API