Hoffman v. Greenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Greenberg

19 A.D.2d 806, 243 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3152

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 806 (Hoffman v. Greenberg) 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

Hoffman v. Greenberg, 19 A.D.2d 806, 243 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, the facts, and in the •exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. In this personal injury action plaintiff, a passenger in defendant’s car, claimed that her head struck the roof of the car which proceeded over a bumpy road at an exaggerated rate of speed. It is claimed defendant was advised to reduce his speed. In our view the verdict is grossly excessive and the jury failed to evaluate correctly the medical proof. Such failure might well have been the result of the ¡behavior of trial counsel which, in the circumstances of this ease, was improper. Accordingly, a new trial is directed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, the facts, and in the •exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. In this personal injury action plaintiff, a passenger in defendant’s car, claimed that her head struck the roof of the car which proceeded over a bumpy road at an exaggerated rate of speed. It is claimed defendant was advised to reduce his speed. In our view the verdict is grossly excessive and the jury failed to evaluate correctly the medical proof. Such failure might well have been the result of the ¡behavior of trial counsel which, in the circumstances of this ease, was improper. Accordingly, a new trial is directed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 806, 243 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-greenberg-nyappdiv-1963.