Brown v. Sutter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Sutter

60 A.D.2d 788, 401 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14846

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 788 (Brown v. Sutter) 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

Brown v. Sutter, 60 A.D.2d 788, 401 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs, to abide the event. All concur, except Moule and Denman, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse the order and reinstate the verdict, in the following memorandum: We would reverse the order. The jury apparently believed the testimony of the physician called by the defendants who related most of plaintiffs trouble to a Parkinson’s syndrome. "The duty to fix damages in a personal injury action is a function of the jury and, unless the amount awarded is so grossly inadequate or excessive as to be unconscionable, it should not be disturbed” (Watson v Archer, 46 AD2d 997). (Appeal from order of Chautauqua Supreme Court— automobile negligence.) Present—Marsh, P.J., Moule, Dillon, Denman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with costs, to abide the event. All concur, except Moule and Denman, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse the order and reinstate the verdict, in the following memorandum: We would reverse the order. The jury apparently believed the testimony of the physician called by the defendants who related most of plaintiffs trouble to a Parkinson’s syndrome. "The duty to fix damages in a personal injury action is a function of the jury and, unless the amount awarded is so grossly inadequate or excessive as to be unconscionable, it should not be disturbed” (Watson v Archer, 46 AD2d 997). (Appeal from order of Chautauqua Supreme Court— automobile negligence.) Present—Marsh, P.J., Moule, Dillon, Denman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 788, 401 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-sutter-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack