Glickman v. Mahon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glickman v. Mahon

67 A.D.2d 678, 411 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10265

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 678 (Glickman v. Mahon) 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

Glickman v. Mahon, 67 A.D.2d 678, 411 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 13, 1976, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of plaintiff Estelle Glickman, individually, in the principal amount of $25,000. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and new trial granted limited to the issue of damages only, with costs to abide the event, unless within 30 days after entry of the order to be made hereon, respondent shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in her favor to $12,500, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The verdict in favor of respondent was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see Fasano v Wassi, 36 AD2d 780; MacDormand v Auchenpaugh, 29 AD2d 1022). Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Gulotta and Martuscello, 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 wrongful death and personal injuries, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 13, 1976, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of plaintiff Estelle Glickman, individually, in the principal amount of $25,000. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and new trial granted limited to the issue of damages only, with costs to abide the event, unless within 30 days after entry of the order to be made hereon, respondent shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in her favor to $12,500, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The verdict in favor of respondent was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see Fasano v Wassi, 36 AD2d 780; MacDormand v Auchenpaugh, 29 AD2d 1022). Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 678, 411 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glickman-v-mahon-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack