Case ID: ad3d_150/html/0844-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vincent Melo et al., Appellants, v Howard Byrns, Respondent.
    [51 NYS3d 899]
   In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated May 18, 2015, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs’ appendix is sufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issue raised by them on the instant appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.10.2 [c] [1]; CPLR 5528 [a] [5]; Washington Mut. Bank v Wade, 119 AD3d 930, 931 [2014]). Accordingly, we decline to dismiss the appeal.

However, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court’s response to the subject jury note was proper and stated the law as applicable to the particular facts at issue (see Green v Downs, 27 NY2d 205, 208 [1970]; Rowe v New York City Tr. Auth., 295 AD2d 333, 334 [2002]; Kravis v Horn, 254 AD2d 462, 463 [1998]; Martino v Triangle Rubber Co., 249 AD2d 454, 455 [1998]; see generally PJI 1:40).

Rivera, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.