Hundley v. Samuels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hundley v. Samuels

16 A.D.2d 654, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10639

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

DecidedApril 2, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 654 (Hundley v. Samuels) 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

Hundley v. Samuels, 16 A.D.2d 654, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of having been struck by defendant’s motor vehicle, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered May 18, 1961, after trial, upon a jury’s verdict of $56,000 in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff shall stipulate to reduce the verdict to $40,000, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict was excessive. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of having been struck by defendant’s motor vehicle, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered May 18, 1961, after trial, upon a jury’s verdict of $56,000 in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff shall stipulate to reduce the verdict to $40,000, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict was excessive. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 654, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hundley-v-samuels-nyappdiv-1962.