Bell v. Rothery Storage & Van Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bell v. Rothery Storage & Van Co.

84 A.D.2d 545, 443 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15602

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A.D.2d 545 (Bell v. Rothery Storage & Van Co.) 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

Bell v. Rothery Storage & Van Co., 84 A.D.2d 545, 443 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover for loss of, and damage to, plaintiff’s personal property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (Martin, J.), dated August 27,1980 and entered in Kings County, which denied his renewed motion (1) to vacate the court’s decision to award damages in “a nominal amount” and (2) for a new trial on the issue of damages. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, renewed motion granted and, on renewal, the award of nominal damages is vacated and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a de novo trial on the issue of the damages directly sustained as a result of the lost and damaged items. Plaintiff should be afforded a full opportunity to substantiate the items of damage as set forth in the “presentation of loss and damage claim” which was admitted into evidence. Hopkins, J.P., Gibbons, Rabin and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover for loss of, and damage to, plaintiff’s personal property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (Martin, J.), dated August 27,1980 and entered in Kings County, which denied his renewed motion (1) to vacate the court’s decision to award damages in “a nominal amount” and (2) for a new trial on the issue of damages. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, renewed motion granted and, on renewal, the award of nominal damages is vacated and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a de novo trial on the issue of the damages directly sustained as a result of the lost and damaged items. Plaintiff should be afforded a full opportunity to substantiate the items of damage as set forth in the “presentation of loss and damage claim” which was admitted into evidence. Hopkins, J.P., Gibbons, Rabin and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 545, 443 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-rothery-storage-van-co-nyappdiv-1981.