Giles v. Orofino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giles v. Orofino

131 A.D.2d 348, 516 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47828

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

DecidedJune 18, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.2d 348 (Giles v. Orofino) 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

Giles v. Orofino, 131 A.D.2d 348, 516 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward O. Provenzano, J.), entered December 20, 1985, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered on the issue of damages only and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, unless plaintiff, within 20 days after service upon his attorney of a copy of the order to be entered herein, serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor to $350,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment as so amended is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward O. Provenzano, J.), entered December 20, 1985, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered on the issue of damages only and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, unless plaintiff, within 20 days after service upon his attorney of a copy of the order to be entered herein, serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor to $350,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment as so amended is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 348, 516 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giles-v-orofino-nyappdiv-1987.