Cassamassino v. Shlimowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cassamassino v. Shlimowitz

2 A.D.2d 748, 153 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 748 (Cassamassino v. Shlimowitz) 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

Cassamassino v. Shlimowitz, 2 A.D.2d 748, 153 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property alleged to have been sustained when a floor collapsed in a building owned by defendant 19-29 Rockwell, Inc., and leased to the appellants, the complaint was dismissed as to defendant Rockwell, and the jury rendered a verdict for $12,500 in favor of respondent against appellants. The appeal is from the judgment entered thereon, limited by appellants’ brief to a claim only that the verdict is excessive. Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of respondent against appellants, reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless respondent within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon stipulate to reduce the verdict to $9,500, in which event the judgment [749]*749ns so reduced is unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the verdict is excessive. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, 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 injuries to person and property alleged to have been sustained when a floor collapsed in a building owned by defendant 19-29 Rockwell, Inc., and leased to the appellants, the complaint was dismissed as to defendant Rockwell, and the jury rendered a verdict for $12,500 in favor of respondent against appellants. The appeal is from the judgment entered thereon, limited by appellants’ brief to a claim only that the verdict is excessive. Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of respondent against appellants, reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless respondent within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon stipulate to reduce the verdict to $9,500, in which event the judgment [749]*749ns so reduced is unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the verdict is excessive. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 748, 153 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassamassino-v-shlimowitz-nyappdiv-1956.