Als v. Welch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Als v. Welch

27 A.D.2d 712, 279 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4942

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 712 (Als v. Welch) 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

Als v. Welch, 27 A.D.2d 712, 279 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the verdict vacated and a new trial granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $35,000 in lieu of the amount awarded by verdict, in which event the judgment is modified to that extent, and as so modified, affirmed with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. In this personal injury negligence action, it is evident that the amount awarded by the' jury is grossly excessive and that a verdict in excess of the amount indicated is not warranted on this record. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

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

Judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the verdict vacated and a new trial granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $35,000 in lieu of the amount awarded by verdict, in which event the judgment is modified to that extent, and as so modified, affirmed with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. In this personal injury negligence action, it is evident that the amount awarded by the' jury is grossly excessive and that a verdict in excess of the amount indicated is not warranted on this record. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 712, 279 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/als-v-welch-nyappdiv-1967.