Alford v. St. Nicholas Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alford v. St. Nicholas Holding Corp.

248 A.D.2d 144, 670 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2026

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 144 (Alford v. St. Nicholas Holding 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

Alford v. St. Nicholas Holding Corp., 248 A.D.2d 144, 670 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 18, 1997, upon jury verdict, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $500,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s findings that plaintiffs assailant was an employee of defendant, and that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he assaulted plaintiff, were not against the weight of the evidence (see, De Wald v Seidenberg, 297 NY 335; Young Bai Choi v D & D Novelties, 157 AD2d 777). The court’s charge on punitive damages was correct (Vanderpuye v AuPrintemps Fashions, 234 AD2d 158), and the evidence supported the jury’s finding that defendant’s representatives consented to or ratified the assault on plaintiff. The damages awarded do not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation for bullet wounds to plaintiffs chest and head. [145]*145We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 18, 1997, upon jury verdict, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $500,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s findings that plaintiffs assailant was an employee of defendant, and that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he assaulted plaintiff, were not against the weight of the evidence (see, De Wald v Seidenberg, 297 NY 335; Young Bai Choi v D & D Novelties, 157 AD2d 777). The court’s charge on punitive damages was correct (Vanderpuye v AuPrintemps Fashions, 234 AD2d 158), and the evidence supported the jury’s finding that defendant’s representatives consented to or ratified the assault on plaintiff. The damages awarded do not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation for bullet wounds to plaintiffs chest and head. [145]*145We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 144, 670 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alford-v-st-nicholas-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack