Hyo Sik Kim v. Samsung America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hyo Sik Kim v. Samsung America, Inc.

213 A.D.2d 290, 624 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 290 (Hyo Sik Kim v. Samsung America, 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

Hyo Sik Kim v. Samsung America, Inc., 213 A.D.2d 290, 624 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered, after a jury verdict, on or about February 10, 1994, in favor of plaintiff, in the sum of $267,731.37, which brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 15, 1994, which denied defendant’s post-judgment motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, the commissions agreement in issue is ambiguous on its face. Inasmuch as the jury verdict is supported by a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, it will not be set aside (see, Walters v Castle Vil. Owners Corp., 166 AD2d 316). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered, after a jury verdict, on or about February 10, 1994, in favor of plaintiff, in the sum of $267,731.37, which brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 15, 1994, which denied defendant’s post-judgment motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, the commissions agreement in issue is ambiguous on its face. Inasmuch as the jury verdict is supported by a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, it will not be set aside (see, Walters v Castle Vil. Owners Corp., 166 AD2d 316). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 290, 624 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyo-sik-kim-v-samsung-america-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack