Kisley v. Remark Building Service Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kisley v. Remark Building Service Co.

27 A.D.2d 851, 280 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4596

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 851 (Kisley v. Remark Building Service Co.) 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

Kisley v. Remark Building Service Co., 27 A.D.2d 851, 280 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 22, 1966, reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff shall serve and file a written stipulation consenting to reduce the amount of the jury verdict in his favor from $72,000 to $35,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the amount of the verdict was excessive to the extent indicated. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 22, 1966, reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff shall serve and file a written stipulation consenting to reduce the amount of the jury verdict in his favor from $72,000 to $35,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the amount of the verdict was excessive to the extent indicated. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 851, 280 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kisley-v-remark-building-service-co-nyappdiv-1967.