Basirico v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Basirico v. New York City Transit Authority

12 A.D.2d 951, 211 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12742

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 951 (Basirico v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Basirico v. New York City Transit Authority, 12 A.D.2d 951, 211 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by the female plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an intersection collision between a bus in which she was a passenger and an automobile, against the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Herbert Goldberg, the bus owner and operator respectively, and against Joseph S. Karpf, the automobile owner and operator, and by her husband for loss of services and medical expenses, the parties cross-appeal as follows: Defendant Transit Authority and defendant Goldberg appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 19, 1959, after a jury trial, and amended by the order of said court, dated December 10, 1959, as is in favor of the female plaintiff against them, such judgment having been entered on the jury’s verdict of $13,400 for said plaintiff. By consent, the husband’s cause of action against said two defendants was dismissed at the opening of the trial because of his failure to serve a notice of claim. Plaintiffs appeal from so much of said judgment as dismisses their complaint upon the merits against the defendant Karpf. On plaintiffs’ appeal: amended judgment, insofar as appealed from by plaintiffs, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. On appeal by defendant Transit Authority and defendant Goldberg: amended judgment reversed on the facts, action severed as to said defendants, and new trial granted as to them, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff Rose Basirico shall stipulate to reduce the amount of the verdict in her favor from $13,400 to $8,000, and to reduce the interest accordingly, in which évent the judgment, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of the female plaintiff is excessive. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by the female plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an intersection collision between a bus in which she was a passenger and an automobile, against the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Herbert Goldberg, the bus owner and operator respectively, and against Joseph S. Karpf, the automobile owner and operator, and by her husband for loss of services and medical expenses, the parties cross-appeal as follows: Defendant Transit Authority and defendant Goldberg appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 19, 1959, after a jury trial, and amended by the order of said court, dated December 10, 1959, as is in favor of the female plaintiff against them, such judgment having been entered on the jury’s verdict of $13,400 for said plaintiff. By consent, the husband’s cause of action against said two defendants was dismissed at the opening of the trial because of his failure to serve a notice of claim. Plaintiffs appeal from so much of said judgment as dismisses their complaint upon the merits against the defendant Karpf. On plaintiffs’ appeal: amended judgment, insofar as appealed from by plaintiffs, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. On appeal by defendant Transit Authority and defendant Goldberg: amended judgment reversed on the facts, action severed as to said defendants, and new trial granted as to them, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff Rose Basirico shall stipulate to reduce the amount of the verdict in her favor from $13,400 to $8,000, and to reduce the interest accordingly, in which évent the judgment, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of the female plaintiff is excessive. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 951, 211 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basirico-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1961.