Block v. Weidler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Block v. Weidler

30 A.D.2d 554, 292 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3935

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

DecidedMay 20, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 554 (Block v. Weidler) 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

Block v. Weidler, 30 A.D.2d 554, 292 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for fraud and misrepresentation, defendants Weidler appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 21, 1966, as is in favor of plaintiff against them, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and new trial granted as between respondent and appellants, with appropriate severance of action directed, and with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below have not been considered. Under the posture of the proof it was error to charge the jury that they could return a verdict granting partial recovery to plaintiff. If plaintiff were entitled to recover at all, he should have been awarded the damages actually sustained (Ganz v. Hi-Line Co., 278 App. Div. 761). Christ, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for fraud and misrepresentation, defendants Weidler appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 21, 1966, as is in favor of plaintiff against them, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and new trial granted as between respondent and appellants, with appropriate severance of action directed, and with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below have not been considered. Under the posture of the proof it was error to charge the jury that they could return a verdict granting partial recovery to plaintiff. If plaintiff were entitled to recover at all, he should have been awarded the damages actually sustained (Ganz v. Hi-Line Co., 278 App. Div. 761). Christ, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 554, 292 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/block-v-weidler-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack