Eisleben v. Torchia-Reile

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eisleben v. Torchia-Reile

178 A.D.2d 940, 580 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17763

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 940 (Eisleben v. Torchia-Reile) 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

Eisleben v. Torchia-Reile, 178 A.D.2d 940, 580 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff and new trial granted on the issue of damages, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict for zero damages as against the weight of the evidence (see, CPLR 4404 [a]). Upon our review of the record, however, we conclude that the court’s conditional assessment of damages in the amount of $750 is not reasonably grounded. Accordingly, we modify the order ap[941]*941pealed from to provide that a new trial is granted on the issue of damages. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Set Aside Verdict.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff and new trial granted on the issue of damages, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict for zero damages as against the weight of the evidence (see, CPLR 4404 [a]). Upon our review of the record, however, we conclude that the court’s conditional assessment of damages in the amount of $750 is not reasonably grounded. Accordingly, we modify the order ap[941]*941pealed from to provide that a new trial is granted on the issue of damages. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Set Aside Verdict.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 940, 580 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisleben-v-torchia-reile-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack