Esposito v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Esposito v. Wilson

308 A.D.2d 432, 764 N.Y.S.2d 207

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

DecidedSeptember 8, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 308 A.D.2d 432 (Esposito v. Wilson) 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

Esposito v. Wilson, 308 A.D.2d 432, 764 N.Y.S.2d 207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated November 20, 2001, as, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $50,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The parties entered into a preverdict, high-low agreement with parameters of $40,000 to $750,000. Since the jury verdict fell within those parameters, the plaintiff’s present challenge to the judgment cannot be sustained (cf. Gold v United Health Servs. Hosps., 95 NY2d 683, 688 [2001]; Ogu v Faulkner, 265 AD2d 469 [1999]; Baca v HRH Constr. Corp., 200 AD2d 538 [1994]). In light of our determination we do not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated November 20, 2001, as, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $50,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The parties entered into a preverdict, high-low agreement with parameters of $40,000 to $750,000. Since the jury verdict fell within those parameters, the plaintiff’s present challenge to the judgment cannot be sustained (cf. Gold v United Health Servs. Hosps., 95 NY2d 683, 688 [2001]; Ogu v Faulkner, 265 AD2d 469 [1999]; Baca v HRH Constr. Corp., 200 AD2d 538 [1994]). In light of our determination we do not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 432, 764 N.Y.S.2d 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esposito-v-wilson-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack