Case ID: ad2d_27/html/0629-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nancy Wronowski, Respondent-Appellant, v. Mid-City Shopping Center, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Nancy Wronowski, Appellant, v. Harold Jarvis, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Mid-City Shopping Center, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Topp’s Discount City, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 3.)
   Memorandum by the Court. Absent any exception to the charge or any pertinent request to charge, appellant’s counsel having indeed affirmatively approved the charge, we find no basis for disturbing the judgment entered upon the verdict of no cause of action in favor of the third-party defendant. The indefensible conduct of plaintiff’s attorney, in large part evoked by the actions of appellant’s attorney, is not to be condoned, but we find that no substantial prejudice was caused thereby. The verdict was not excessive. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Brink, JJ., concur.