Bowman v. Kaminsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bowman v. Kaminsky

100 A.D.2d 835, 473 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17939

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

DecidedApril 2, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.2d 835 (Bowman v. Kaminsky) 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

Bowman v. Kaminsky, 100 A.D.2d 835, 473 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a personal injury action, defendant Kerry Katsorhis appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), entered August 29, 1983, as is in favor of plaintiff Patricia Bowman and [836]*836against him in the principal sum of $240,000. $ Amended judgment reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and a new trial granted as to defendant Katsorhis on the issue of damages only, unless, within 20 days after service upon plaintiff Patricia Bowman of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry, she shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages as against defendant Katsorhis to the principal sum of $175,000 aijd to the entry of a further amended judgment accordingly. In the event that plaintiff Patricia Bowman so stipulates, then the amended judgment, as so reduced and further amended, is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. $The verdict was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a personal injury action, defendant Kerry Katsorhis appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), entered August 29, 1983, as is in favor of plaintiff Patricia Bowman and [836]*836against him in the principal sum of $240,000. $ Amended judgment reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and a new trial granted as to defendant Katsorhis on the issue of damages only, unless, within 20 days after service upon plaintiff Patricia Bowman of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry, she shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages as against defendant Katsorhis to the principal sum of $175,000 aijd to the entry of a further amended judgment accordingly. In the event that plaintiff Patricia Bowman so stipulates, then the amended judgment, as so reduced and further amended, is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. $The verdict was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 835, 473 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-kaminsky-nyappdiv-1984.