Cannizzaro v. Di Martini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cannizzaro v. Di Martini

30 A.D.2d 928, 294 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3260

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 928 (Cannizzaro v. Di Martini) 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

Cannizzaro v. Di Martini, 30 A.D.2d 928, 294 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 4, 1967, reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff Angelina Cannizzaro shall serve and file in the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce from $32,000 to $21,500 the amount of the verdict in her favor and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of plaintiff Angelina Cannizzaro was excessive to the extent indicated. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 4, 1967, reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff Angelina Cannizzaro shall serve and file in the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce from $32,000 to $21,500 the amount of the verdict in her favor and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of plaintiff Angelina Cannizzaro was excessive to the extent indicated. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 928, 294 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannizzaro-v-di-martini-nyappdiv-1968.