Davanzo v. Manhattan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davanzo v. Manhattan

49 A.D.2d 521, 373 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10367

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 3, 1975·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 27, 1974, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial granted solely on the issue of damages, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event, unless the plaintiff-respondent, within 20 days of service upon her by the defendant-appellant of a copy of the order entered herein with notice of entry, serves and files in the office of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in her favor to $150,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If the plaintiff-respondent consents to the reduction, the judgment as so amended and reduced is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The amount awarded by the jury was excessive and a judgment exceeding the amount indicated is not warranted on this record. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 27, 1974, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial granted solely on the issue of damages, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event, unless the plaintiff-respondent, within 20 days of service upon her by the defendant-appellant of a copy of the order entered herein with notice of entry, serves and files in the office of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in her favor to $150,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If the plaintiff-respondent consents to the reduction, the judgment as so amended and reduced is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The amount awarded by the jury was excessive and a judgment exceeding the amount indicated is not warranted on this record. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Davanzo v. Manhattan, 49 A.D.2d 521, 373 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

49 A.D.2d 521 (Davanzo v. Manhattan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.