Di Blasi v. Caldara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Blasi v. Caldara

123 A.D.2d 738, 507 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60880

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 738 (Di Blasi v. Caldara) 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

Di Blasi v. Caldara, 123 A.D.2d 738, 507 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated May 30, 1985, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against them, upon a jury verdict, in the principal amount of $42,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants argue that the award of $42,000 in damages was excessive. On the appendix filed, however, which is limited to the summation and the charge, and does not contain any trial testimony, or for that matter, a copy of the plaintiffs bill of particulars, it is impossible to determine whether such is the case. Review by this court is limited by the appendix on appeal (see, Block v Nelson, 71 AD2d 509; see also, CPLR 5528 [a] [5]; 22 NYCRR 670.17 [h]). We have considered the other issues raised by the defendants and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated May 30, 1985, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against them, upon a jury verdict, in the principal amount of $42,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants argue that the award of $42,000 in damages was excessive. On the appendix filed, however, which is limited to the summation and the charge, and does not contain any trial testimony, or for that matter, a copy of the plaintiffs bill of particulars, it is impossible to determine whether such is the case. Review by this court is limited by the appendix on appeal (see, Block v Nelson, 71 AD2d 509; see also, CPLR 5528 [a] [5]; 22 NYCRR 670.17 [h]). We have considered the other issues raised by the defendants and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 738, 507 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-blasi-v-caldara-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack