Ciccarello v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciccarello v. Rubin

22 A.D.2d 887, 255 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2630

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 887 (Ciccarello v. Rubin) 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

Ciccarello v. Rubin, 22 A.D.2d 887, 255 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for injury to person and property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the ¡Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 14, 1963 upon a jury’s verdict in -the plaintiff’s favor for $1,018.83 after an assessment of damages as directed by a prior [888]*888order of the court granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff contends that the amount of the verdict is inadequate. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to plaintiff, and new trial granted, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, defendants shall serve and file a written stipulation consenting to increase the verdict from $1,018.83 to $5,000 and to a modification of the judgment accordingly. In the event such stipulation he served and filed, then the judgment as thus increased and modified is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, under all the circumstances, the amount of the jury’s verdict was inadequate at least to the extent indicated. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for injury to person and property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the ¡Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 14, 1963 upon a jury’s verdict in -the plaintiff’s favor for $1,018.83 after an assessment of damages as directed by a prior [888]*888order of the court granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff contends that the amount of the verdict is inadequate. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to plaintiff, and new trial granted, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, defendants shall serve and file a written stipulation consenting to increase the verdict from $1,018.83 to $5,000 and to a modification of the judgment accordingly. In the event such stipulation he served and filed, then the judgment as thus increased and modified is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, under all the circumstances, the amount of the jury’s verdict was inadequate at least to the extent indicated. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 887, 255 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciccarello-v-rubin-nyappdiv-1964.