Fernandes v. Haggerty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fernandes v. Haggerty

31 A.D.2d 537, 295 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2975

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 537 (Fernandes v. Haggerty) 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

Fernandes v. Haggerty, 31 A.D.2d 537, 295 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated April 19, 1968, as granted the motion of plaintiff Carmela Fernandes to set aside a jury verdict in her favor for $20,000, on the ground of inadequacy, unless defendant stipulate to pay said plaintiff $35,000. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs; in accordance, the second and third decretal paragraphs thereof are struck out and said plaintiff’s motion denied; and jury verdict as to said plaintiff reinstated. In our opinion, the jury’s verdict in favor of Carmela Fernandes was neither "so inadequate as to shock judicial conscience” (Seward V. Motz, 22 A D 2d 1009) nor “unconscionable” (Cesario v. Demetria Realty Corp., 250 App. Div. 272, 273). Nor does it appear on this record that the verdict was capricious or the result of passion, prejudice or sympathy (Jordan v. Smyk, 262 App. Div. 414, 416). Under these circumstances, a trial court should not lightly usurp the function of the jury in fixing the amount of damages. Beldock, P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated April 19, 1968, as granted the motion of plaintiff Carmela Fernandes to set aside a jury verdict in her favor for $20,000, on the ground of inadequacy, unless defendant stipulate to pay said plaintiff $35,000. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs; in accordance, the second and third decretal paragraphs thereof are struck out and said plaintiff’s motion denied; and jury verdict as to said plaintiff reinstated. In our opinion, the jury’s verdict in favor of Carmela Fernandes was neither "so inadequate as to shock judicial conscience” (Seward V. Motz, 22 A D 2d 1009) nor “unconscionable” (Cesario v. Demetria Realty Corp., 250 App. Div. 272, 273). Nor does it appear on this record that the verdict was capricious or the result of passion, prejudice or sympathy (Jordan v. Smyk, 262 App. Div. 414, 416). Under these circumstances, a trial court should not lightly usurp the function of the jury in fixing the amount of damages. Beldock, P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 537, 295 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandes-v-haggerty-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack