From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herring v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 26, 1978
63 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Opinion

May 26, 1978

Appeal from the Onondaga Supreme Court.

Present — Marsh, P.J., Cardamone, Simons and Witmer, JJ.


Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The notice of appeal from the verdict of no cause for action, rendered on April 22, 1976 and from the rulings of the Trial Justice was served on May 19, 1976. Plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied by letter from the Trial Justice dated May 12, 1976, and no formal order appears to have been entered thereon. Judgment on the verdict was entered on May 21, 1976, two days after service of plaintiff's purported notice of appeal from the verdict. The stipulated record omitted the motion and supporting papers to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Respondents made no objection to the notice of appeal. Since argument of the appeal, plaintiff has moved this court for resettlement of the record to include the motion, and supporting papers, to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and respondents object. "Where a notice of appeal is premature or contains an inaccurate description of the judgment or order appealed from, the appellate court, in its discretion, when the interests of justice so demand, may treat such a notice as valid" (CPLR 5520, subd [c]; and see People ex rel. Breedan v Zelker, 41 A.D.2d 669; Matter of Lust, 35 A.D.2d 997). Accordingly, we treat the appeal as from the judgment and also from the order denying the motion to set aside the verdict; and, in the interests of expediting disposition of this appeal, since the papers in support of the motion contain nothing new or surprising to respondents, we grant the motion, unusual for this court, to make them a part of the record on appeal. In light of the evidence presented by respondents in justification for the shooting of the deceased, and the provisions of section 35.30 Penal of the Penal Law and the discussion thereof by Arnold D. Hechtman (Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law, § 35.30, pp 115-117) we affirm the order of Trial Term denying the motion to set aside the verdict. A substantial issue of fact was presented for the jury. We find no merit to any of the arguments raised by plaintiff as to alleged trial errors. No error of substance was made or preserved for review by objection or exception; and we find no basis for reversal in the interests of justice.


Summaries of

Herring v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 26, 1978
63 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)
Case details for

Herring v. City of Syracuse

Case Details

Full title:BERTHAETTA HERRING, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of…

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

Date published: May 26, 1978

Citations

63 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

Williams v. City of New York

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City ( Julie Steiner and Barry P. Schwartz of counsel), for…

Matter of Schunk

When reargument is granted, the appeal is properly from the order issued on reargument, not the initial order…