Grande v. Dunn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grande v. Dunn

114 A.D.2d 884, 495 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53911

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 884 (Grande v. Dunn) 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

Grande v. Dunn, 114 A.D.2d 884, 495 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action, defendant Frank M. Dunn appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), entered April 30, 1984, upon a jury verdict, awarding appellant the principal sum of only $10,000 on his counterclaim.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

While it is true that the amount awarded to appellant on his counterclaim was low, there was ample basis in the record for the conclusion that the jury did not find him credible. Although the conduct of plaintiffs counsel during the trial was hardly praiseworthy, it does not warrant reversal in the face of appellant’s failure to move for a mistrial and the other circumstances of this case, including the effect of General Obligations Law § 15-108 upon any prospective recovery by the appellant. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action, defendant Frank M. Dunn appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), entered April 30, 1984, upon a jury verdict, awarding appellant the principal sum of only $10,000 on his counterclaim.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

While it is true that the amount awarded to appellant on his counterclaim was low, there was ample basis in the record for the conclusion that the jury did not find him credible. Although the conduct of plaintiffs counsel during the trial was hardly praiseworthy, it does not warrant reversal in the face of appellant’s failure to move for a mistrial and the other circumstances of this case, including the effect of General Obligations Law § 15-108 upon any prospective recovery by the appellant. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 884, 495 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grande-v-dunn-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack