Haas v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haas v. Brown

282 A.D. 916, 125 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5408

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D. 916 (Haas v. Brown) 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

Haas v. Brown, 282 A.D. 916, 125 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment insofar as appealed from and order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and verdict of the jury reinstated. Memorandum: The court having submitted the issue of the extent of damages to the jury without objection, the sufficiency of the complaint in that regard could not be tested upon a motion for a new trial. The jury having returned a verdict in the amount testified to by the mechanic who repaired plaintiff’s car, it was error for the court to disregard this sum and reduce the verdict to six cents. We also feel that the court was in error in refusing to grant the motion to amend the complaint to conform to the proof which was admitted without objection. All concur. (Appeal from part of a judgment for plaintiff for $267, which verdict was reduced to six cents by an order of the court, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — MeCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Judgment insofar as appealed from and order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and verdict of the jury reinstated. Memorandum: The court having submitted the issue of the extent of damages to the jury without objection, the sufficiency of the complaint in that regard could not be tested upon a motion for a new trial. The jury having returned a verdict in the amount testified to by the mechanic who repaired plaintiff’s car, it was error for the court to disregard this sum and reduce the verdict to six cents. We also feel that the court was in error in refusing to grant the motion to amend the complaint to conform to the proof which was admitted without objection. All concur. (Appeal from part of a judgment for plaintiff for $267, which verdict was reduced to six cents by an order of the court, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — MeCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 916, 125 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haas-v-brown-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack