Fitzgerald v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzgerald v. Sanchez

60 A.D.2d 520, 399 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14415

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.2d 520 (Fitzgerald v. Sanchez) 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

Fitzgerald v. Sanchez, 60 A.D.2d 520, 399 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered in favor of plaintiff-respondent on June 14, 1976, after trial before Gellinoff, J., and a jury, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law and new trial ordered on the issue of damages only, without costs or disbursements. The brother of the decedent testified at the trial that his father resided with him. The decedent’s father having survived her, he was her sole distributee (EPTL 4-1.1, subd [a], pars [4], [7]). This action was not for the benefit of the decedent’s surviving brother as the court erroneously charged. The charge failed to limit recovery to the net pecuniary loss to the next of kin of the deceased. A new trial on the issue of damages is required. (EPTL 5-4.3, 5-4.4.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered in favor of plaintiff-respondent on June 14, 1976, after trial before Gellinoff, J., and a jury, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law and new trial ordered on the issue of damages only, without costs or disbursements. The brother of the decedent testified at the trial that his father resided with him. The decedent’s father having survived her, he was her sole distributee (EPTL 4-1.1, subd [a], pars [4], [7]). This action was not for the benefit of the decedent’s surviving brother as the court erroneously charged. The charge failed to limit recovery to the net pecuniary loss to the next of kin of the deceased. A new trial on the issue of damages is required. (EPTL 5-4.3, 5-4.4.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 520, 399 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-sanchez-nyappdiv-1977.