Guilbert v. E. J. Korvette, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guilbert v. E. J. Korvette, Inc.

36 A.D.2d 715, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4430

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.2d 715 (Guilbert v. E. J. Korvette, Inc.) 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

Guilbert v. E. J. Korvette, Inc., 36 A.D.2d 715, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Concur — Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to grant leave to appeal. In my opinion, the claimed excessiveness of the $9,000 verdict should be reviewed. Plaintiff was struck by a toppling mannikin on October 1, 1965. She was treated that day and one week later and never saw the treating physician again until several days before the trial in 1969. She claims to have been treated by a doctor in Florida. Her testimony was taken subject to connection. It was never connected. The proof shows that the plaintiff was absent from work for two weeks and did not see the doctor in Florida until a year before the trial.

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

Concur — Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to grant leave to appeal. In my opinion, the claimed excessiveness of the $9,000 verdict should be reviewed. Plaintiff was struck by a toppling mannikin on October 1, 1965. She was treated that day and one week later and never saw the treating physician again until several days before the trial in 1969. She claims to have been treated by a doctor in Florida. Her testimony was taken subject to connection. It was never connected. The proof shows that the plaintiff was absent from work for two weeks and did not see the doctor in Florida until a year before the trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.2d 715, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guilbert-v-e-j-korvette-inc-nyappdiv-1971.