Amaro v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amaro v. City of New York

47 A.D.2d 625, 366 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8787

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 1975·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, as amended by an order of said court entered December 13, 1972, in favor of plaintiff upon a jury verdict of $1,600,000. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, solely on the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order to be made hereon, plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict to $750,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed. The verdict was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, as amended by an order of said court entered December 13, 1972, in favor of plaintiff upon a jury verdict of $1,600,000. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, solely on the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order to be made hereon, plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict to $750,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed. The verdict was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Amaro v. City of New York, 47 A.D.2d 625, 366 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

47 A.D.2d 625 (Amaro v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related