Hanstick v. H. C. Bohack Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanstick v. H. C. Bohack Co.

254 A.D. 704, 3 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199

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

DecidedApril 22, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 704 (Hanstick v. H. C. Bohack Co.) 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

Hanstick v. H. C. Bohack Co., 254 A.D. 704, 3 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Personal injury action by an infant, and by her father to recover for expenses and loss of services. A verdict was rendered in favor of the infant plaintiff in the sum of $5,000, and in favor of defendant in the father’s action. The trial court set aside the verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff unless she.stipulate to reduce the amount thereof to $1/000. She refused so to stipulate and an order setting the verdict aside and returning the cause to the trial calendar was thereupon entered. From that order the infant plaintiff appeals. Order in so far as it sets aside the verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff reversed on the facts, without costs, and motion denied, on condition that within ten days from the entry of the order hereon the infant plaintiff stipulate that the verdict rendered by the jury [705]*705in her favor be reduced to $2,000. In the event that said plaintiff fail so to stipulate, the order is unanimously affirmed, with costs to abide the event qf the new trial. In our opinion the reduction of the verdict to $1,000 was too drastic. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

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

Personal injury action by an infant, and by her father to recover for expenses and loss of services. A verdict was rendered in favor of the infant plaintiff in the sum of $5,000, and in favor of defendant in the father’s action. The trial court set aside the verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff unless she.stipulate to reduce the amount thereof to $1/000. She refused so to stipulate and an order setting the verdict aside and returning the cause to the trial calendar was thereupon entered. From that order the infant plaintiff appeals. Order in so far as it sets aside the verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff reversed on the facts, without costs, and motion denied, on condition that within ten days from the entry of the order hereon the infant plaintiff stipulate that the verdict rendered by the jury [705]*705in her favor be reduced to $2,000. In the event that said plaintiff fail so to stipulate, the order is unanimously affirmed, with costs to abide the event qf the new trial. In our opinion the reduction of the verdict to $1,000 was too drastic. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 704, 3 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanstick-v-h-c-bohack-co-nyappdiv-1938.