Kielman v. Enterprise Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kielman v. Enterprise Stores, Inc.

38 A.D.2d 629, 326 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2694

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 629 (Kielman v. Enterprise Stores, 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

Kielman v. Enterprise Stores, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 629, 326 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Schenectady County, setting aside a jury verdict in favor of the respondent in the amount of $18,000 on the ground of inadequacy and ordering a new trial limited to the issue of damages. The trial court’s determination as to the adequacy of a jury verdict will only be disturbed by an appellate court where it can be said that the trial court’s exercise of its discretion is not reasonably grounded (Hussey v. Oneida Motor Frgt., 30 A D 2d 741). Here respondent sustained extremely serious burns to his upper torso when sparks from an acetylene torch ignited his sweatshirt. As a result respondent was hospitalized for over a month, and confined to his home for an additional five weeks. Special damages amounting to $2,816 were claimed, considerable pain and suffering were testified to and permanent injury in the form of scars on his back and a 15% limitation of motion in the left shoulder was asserted. In addition considerable continuing discomfitures, annoyances and limitations of physical actions previously engaged in were brought forth at the trial. On this state of the record it cannot be said that the [630]*630trial court’s decision reflects unreasonable judgment or an abuse of discretion and, accordingly, the order appealed from should be affirmed. Order affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Simons, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Schenectady County, setting aside a jury verdict in favor of the respondent in the amount of $18,000 on the ground of inadequacy and ordering a new trial limited to the issue of damages. The trial court’s determination as to the adequacy of a jury verdict will only be disturbed by an appellate court where it can be said that the trial court’s exercise of its discretion is not reasonably grounded (Hussey v. Oneida Motor Frgt., 30 A D 2d 741). Here respondent sustained extremely serious burns to his upper torso when sparks from an acetylene torch ignited his sweatshirt. As a result respondent was hospitalized for over a month, and confined to his home for an additional five weeks. Special damages amounting to $2,816 were claimed, considerable pain and suffering were testified to and permanent injury in the form of scars on his back and a 15% limitation of motion in the left shoulder was asserted. In addition considerable continuing discomfitures, annoyances and limitations of physical actions previously engaged in were brought forth at the trial. On this state of the record it cannot be said that the [630]*630trial court’s decision reflects unreasonable judgment or an abuse of discretion and, accordingly, the order appealed from should be affirmed. Order affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Simons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 629, 326 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kielman-v-enterprise-stores-inc-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack