Cohalan v. New York Press Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohalan v. New York Press Co.

148 A.D. 89, 132 N.Y.S. 1101, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 148

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 29, 1911·Published

Opinions

Scott, J.:

I agree that there was error committed in the particulars pointed out by Mr. Justice Laughlin ; but that error went only to the measure of damages and in view of the nature of the article and the amount of the verdict, I do not think it. can fairly be said that it really increased the damages; since the article was one as to which the jury would have been justified in awarding a sum equal to the verdict without including punitive damages.

. I think, therefore, that the error was one which we can [90]*90overlook and that the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Miller and Dowling, JJ., concurred; Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented.

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

Scott, J.:

I agree that there was error committed in the particulars pointed out by Mr. Justice Laughlin ; but that error went only to the measure of damages and in view of the nature of the article and the amount of the verdict, I do not think it. can fairly be said that it really increased the damages; since the article was one as to which the jury would have been justified in awarding a sum equal to the verdict without including punitive damages.

. I think, therefore, that the error was one which we can [90]*90overlook and that the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Miller and Dowling, JJ., concurred; Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented.

Cohalan v. New York Press Co., 148 A.D. 89, 132 N.Y.S. 1101, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

148 A.D. 89 (Cohalan v. New York Press Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related