Goldman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. City of New York

278 A.D. 770, 103 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4687

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

DecidedApril 2, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 770 (Goldman v. City of New York) 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

Goldman v. City of New York, 278 A.D. 770, 103 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the respondent as a result of having been shot by the negligent discharge of the revolver of a police officer in the employ of the appellant. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless within twenty days after the entry of the order hereon respondent stipulate that the verdict in his favor be reduced to $50,000, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the verdict of the jury in the sum of $75,000 was excessive. Present —Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate,. JJ.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the respondent as a result of having been shot by the negligent discharge of the revolver of a police officer in the employ of the appellant. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless within twenty days after the entry of the order hereon respondent stipulate that the verdict in his favor be reduced to $50,000, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the verdict of the jury in the sum of $75,000 was excessive. Present —Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate,. JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 770, 103 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack