Hommel v. Garelick Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hommel v. Garelick Manufacturing Co.

254 A.D.2d 835, 678 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10582

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 835 (Hommel v. Garelick Manufacturing 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

Hommel v. Garelick Manufacturing Co., 254 A.D.2d 835, 678 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: After Supreme Court directed a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor on the issue of liability at the trial of this products liability action, the jury returned a verdict awarding plaintiffs no damages. The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, CPLR 4404 [a]). There is a fair interpretation of the evidence that plaintiffs did not sustain an identifiable compensable injury or any economic loss (see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134-135). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Buckley, J. — Negligence.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: After Supreme Court directed a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor on the issue of liability at the trial of this products liability action, the jury returned a verdict awarding plaintiffs no damages. The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, CPLR 4404 [a]). There is a fair interpretation of the evidence that plaintiffs did not sustain an identifiable compensable injury or any economic loss (see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134-135). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Buckley, J. — Negligence.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 835, 678 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hommel-v-garelick-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack