Catanese v. Quinn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catanese v. Quinn

29 A.D.2d 675, 287 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4796

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 675 (Catanese v. Quinn) 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

Catanese v. Quinn, 29 A.D.2d 675, 287 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendants Quinn from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 23,1965, as is against them. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, and severance and new trial, on the issue of damages only, granted as to said defendants, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff should stipulate to reduce from $35,000 to $15,000 the amount of the verdict in his favor and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the Trial Judge was acting within the discretion allowed him by CPLR 4404 when he refused to set aside the verdict as being against the weight of the evidence (cf. Lipshits v. Sloan, 280 App. Div. 855; Mann v. Hunt, 283 App. Div. 140; Rega V. Farley, 13 A D 2d 860). The credibility of the key witness, William MaeGibbon, as well as the reconciliation of any contradictions or inconsistencies in his testimony, were questions of fact for the jury {Lee v. City Brewing Gorp., 279 N. Y. 380, 384). In addition, MacGibbon’s verification that the photographs were fair and accurate representations of the scene of the accident immediately thereafter was sufficient authentication for their admission into evidence {Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464, 477 — 479; McCormick, Evidence, § 181). We are of the opinion, however, that the amount of the verdict was excessive and that it should be reduced to $15,000. Brennan,'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

Appeal by defendants Quinn from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 23,1965, as is against them. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, and severance and new trial, on the issue of damages only, granted as to said defendants, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff should stipulate to reduce from $35,000 to $15,000 the amount of the verdict in his favor and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the Trial Judge was acting within the discretion allowed him by CPLR 4404 when he refused to set aside the verdict as being against the weight of the evidence (cf. Lipshits v. Sloan, 280 App. Div. 855; Mann v. Hunt, 283 App. Div. 140; Rega V. Farley, 13 A D 2d 860). The credibility of the key witness, William MaeGibbon, as well as the reconciliation of any contradictions or inconsistencies in his testimony, were questions of fact for the jury {Lee v. City Brewing Gorp., 279 N. Y. 380, 384). In addition, MacGibbon’s verification that the photographs were fair and accurate representations of the scene of the accident immediately thereafter was sufficient authentication for their admission into evidence {Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464, 477 — 479; McCormick, Evidence, § 181). We are of the opinion, however, that the amount of the verdict was excessive and that it should be reduced to $15,000. Brennan,'Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 675, 287 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catanese-v-quinn-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack