Guiliano v. Garcia & Diaz, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guiliano v. Garcia & Diaz, Inc.

26 A.D.2d 635, 272 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3671

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 635 (Guiliano v. Garcia & Diaz, 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

Guiliano v. Garcia & Diaz, Inc., 26 A.D.2d 635, 272 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action, defendant and third-party plaintiff, Garcia and Diaz, Inc., appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 2, 1965, as was in plaintiff’s favor upon a jury verdict of $50,000 and as dismissed its third-party complaint. Judgment, insofar as appealed from (1) affirmed insofar as it dismissed the third-party complaint, with costs to the third-party defendant-respondent; and (2) reversed on the facts, insofar as it is in plaintiff’s favor; main action severed and a new trial thereof granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order herein, plaintiff shall serve and file a written stipulation consenting to reduce from $50,000 to $40,000 the amount of the verdict in his favor and to the entry [636]*636of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended and insofar as it relates to the main action, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, in view of the nature of the injury, the verdict was excessive to the extent indicated. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action, defendant and third-party plaintiff, Garcia and Diaz, Inc., appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 2, 1965, as was in plaintiff’s favor upon a jury verdict of $50,000 and as dismissed its third-party complaint. Judgment, insofar as appealed from (1) affirmed insofar as it dismissed the third-party complaint, with costs to the third-party defendant-respondent; and (2) reversed on the facts, insofar as it is in plaintiff’s favor; main action severed and a new trial thereof granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order herein, plaintiff shall serve and file a written stipulation consenting to reduce from $50,000 to $40,000 the amount of the verdict in his favor and to the entry [636]*636of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended and insofar as it relates to the main action, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, in view of the nature of the injury, the verdict was excessive to the extent indicated. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 635, 272 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guiliano-v-garcia-diaz-inc-nyappdiv-1966.