Howell v. Cecilia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howell v. Cecilia

45 A.D.3d 1406, 844 N.Y.S.2d 733

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2007

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 1406 (Howell v. Cecilia) 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

Howell v. Cecilia, 45 A.D.3d 1406, 844 N.Y.S.2d 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Norman I. Siegel, A.J.), entered April 24, 2006. The judgment, entered [1407]*1407upon a jury verdict, awarded the sum of $110,444.74 in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, inter alia, negligent misrepresentation based on defendant’s alleged failure to disclose that property purchased by plaintiffs had sustained fire damage. The judgment, entered upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiffs the sum of $110,444.74, and Supreme Court denied defendant’s post-trial motion to set aside the verdict. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenges to the court’s charge (see CPLR 4110-b; Harris v Armstrong, 64 NY2d 700, 702 [1984]). Contrary to defendant’s further contentions, the verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and is not inconsistent (see Latour v Hayner Hoyt Corp. [appeal No. 2], 13 AD3d 1147 [2004]; Hotaling v Corning Inc., 12 AD3d 1064, 1066 [2004]), and the award of damages does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Latour, 13 AD3d at 1148; Hotaling, 12 AD3d at 1066). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Norman I. Siegel, A.J.), entered April 24, 2006. The judgment, entered [1407]*1407upon a jury verdict, awarded the sum of $110,444.74 in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, inter alia, negligent misrepresentation based on defendant’s alleged failure to disclose that property purchased by plaintiffs had sustained fire damage. The judgment, entered upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiffs the sum of $110,444.74, and Supreme Court denied defendant’s post-trial motion to set aside the verdict. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenges to the court’s charge (see CPLR 4110-b; Harris v Armstrong, 64 NY2d 700, 702 [1984]). Contrary to defendant’s further contentions, the verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and is not inconsistent (see Latour v Hayner Hoyt Corp. [appeal No. 2], 13 AD3d 1147 [2004]; Hotaling v Corning Inc., 12 AD3d 1064, 1066 [2004]), and the award of damages does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Latour, 13 AD3d at 1148; Hotaling, 12 AD3d at 1066). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 1406, 844 N.Y.S.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-cecilia-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack