Haz v. Grand Union Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haz v. Grand Union Co.

24 A.D.2d 742, 263 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3309

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 742 (Haz v. Grand Union 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

Haz v. Grand Union Co., 24 A.D.2d 742, 263 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment setting aside a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and directing judgment in favor of defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the judgment vacated, the order setting aside the verdict affirmed and a new trial granted unless plaintiff stipulates to accept the sum of $2,500 in lieu of the previous award by verdict and defendant agrees to pay the same, in which event the verdict as thus reduced is reinstated and judgment thereon is directed, in each instance, without costs or disbursements. In this personal injury action it was error to set aside the verdict on the ground that there was a failure of proof of notice. The record presents a question of fact with reference thereto. It is evident, however, that the jury verdict is grossly excessive and that a verdict in excess of $2,500 is not warranted by this record. Settle order on notice. Concur —Botein, P. J,, ¡Breitel, Valente, McNally and Witmer, JJ,

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

Judgment setting aside a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and directing judgment in favor of defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the judgment vacated, the order setting aside the verdict affirmed and a new trial granted unless plaintiff stipulates to accept the sum of $2,500 in lieu of the previous award by verdict and defendant agrees to pay the same, in which event the verdict as thus reduced is reinstated and judgment thereon is directed, in each instance, without costs or disbursements. In this personal injury action it was error to set aside the verdict on the ground that there was a failure of proof of notice. The record presents a question of fact with reference thereto. It is evident, however, that the jury verdict is grossly excessive and that a verdict in excess of $2,500 is not warranted by this record. Settle order on notice. Concur —Botein, P. J,, ¡Breitel, Valente, McNally and Witmer, JJ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 742, 263 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haz-v-grand-union-co-nyappdiv-1965.