Hotop v. English & Greenfader, Inc.

248 A.D. 774

This text of 248 A.D. 774 (Hotop v. English & Greenfader, Inc.) 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
Hotop v. English & Greenfader, Inc., 248 A.D. 774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinion

In an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries in which the jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $25,000, the court, on motion of defendant’s counsel, made an order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, unless plaintiff should stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $15,000. The plaintiff thereafter filed such stipulation. Notwithstanding the reduction, the defendant has appealed. The plaintiff also appealed from the order referred to. The order granting defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, unless the plaintiff stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $15,000, is reversed on the law and the facts, the motion denied and the verdict reinstated. The judgment appealed from by the defendant is modified by increasing the verdict to the sum of $25,000, the amount found by the jury, and, as so modified, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff. The defendant’s appeal from the order denying its motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial is dismissed. The established facts were sufficient to justify the jury’s finding that the truck which struck the plaintiff belonged to the defendant. (Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 80 N. Y. 622; Swistak v. Erie Railroad Co., 208 App. Div. 553; affd., 239 N. Y. 549; Warner v. New York, Ontario & Western Ry. Co., 209 App. Div. 211.) We are of the opinion that the evidence of plaintiff’s injuries which were serious and, to some extent at least, permanent, and not dis[775]*775puted by the defendant, fully justified the verdict as rendered by the jury. Lazansky, P. J-, Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hart v. . Hudson River Bridge Company
80 N.Y. 622 (New York Court of Appeals, 1880)
Swistak v. Erie Railroad Company
147 N.E. 190 (New York Court of Appeals, 1924)
Swistak v. Erie Railroad
208 A.D. 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)
Warner v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
209 A.D. 211 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D. 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hotop-v-english-greenfader-inc-nyappdiv-1936.