Alascia v. Third Avenue Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alascia v. Third Avenue Transit Corp.

282 A.D. 1028, 126 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5722

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 1028 (Alascia v. Third Avenue Transit Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alascia v. Third Avenue Transit Corp., 282 A.D. 1028, 126 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

As defendants have admitted liability in these consolidated actions, the delay in making the motion to restore the ease to the calendar after the verdict of the jury had been set aside for excessiveness should not operate to their prejudice if they are called upon to respond in damages only to the extent of the amounts fixed by the Trial Judge when he set aside the verdict of the jury. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed upon condition that the Home Siphon Filling Corp. tender to plaintiffs respectively, payment of one half of the judgment as subsequently reduced by the trial court, and that plaintiffs be permitted to present their respective claims for the other one half of the judgment, as subsequently reduced, to the codefendant Third Avenue Transit Corp., or its representatives. In the event that defendants do not consent to this arrangement, the order appealed from is reversed and the motion of plaintiffs to restore the eases to the calendar for trial is granted. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan and Breitel, JJ. [See 283 App. Div. 696.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

As defendants have admitted liability in these consolidated actions, the delay in making the motion to restore the ease to the calendar after the verdict of the jury had been set aside for excessiveness should not operate to their prejudice if they are called upon to respond in damages only to the extent of the amounts fixed by the Trial Judge when he set aside the verdict of the jury. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed upon condition that the Home Siphon Filling Corp. tender to plaintiffs respectively, payment of one half of the judgment as subsequently reduced by the trial court, and that plaintiffs be permitted to present their respective claims for the other one half of the judgment, as subsequently reduced, to the codefendant Third Avenue Transit Corp., or its representatives. In the event that defendants do not consent to this arrangement, the order appealed from is reversed and the motion of plaintiffs to restore the eases to the calendar for trial is granted. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan and Breitel, JJ. [See 283 App. Div. 696.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1028, 126 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alascia-v-third-avenue-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1953.