Opinion
January 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.).
The verdict was neither excessive nor against the weight of the evidence. The evidence submitted was sufficient to permit a charge to the jury that attorneys' fees incurred by plaintiff as a result of defendant's breach of the insurance contract were recoverable. Moreover, a missing witness charge with respect to the attorneys who performed services on behalf of plaintiff was not warranted. The court's inadvertent failure to charge that a defendant in Civil Court has 20 days to answer a complaint has not been preserved for review since defense counsel failed to object to the charge on this ground (Bellefeuille v. City County Sav. Bank, 40 N.Y.2d 879, 880). Defendant's additional contention that the court erred in failing to specifically exclude certain claims for damages in its charge is both unpreserved and without merit since the parties agreed to a general verdict, thus precluding this Court from ascertaining whether or not it contained any improper damage claims (see, Hunt v. Bankers Shippers Ins. Co., 50 N.Y.2d 938; Cohen v. City of New York, 171 A.D.2d 721).
Since the jury rendered a general verdict without specifying the date from which interest was to be computed, the court properly determined such date (CPLR 5001 [c]). Finally, the court properly refused to allow plaintiff to prove punitive damages (see, Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 N.Y.2d 603).
We have considered the other contentions raised and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.