Krechmer v. Mintzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krechmer v. Mintzer

7 A.D.3d 284, 776 N.Y.S.2d 788, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6544

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

DecidedMay 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 284 (Krechmer v. Mintzer) 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

Krechmer v. Mintzer, 7 A.D.3d 284, 776 N.Y.S.2d 788, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J), entered April 24, 2003, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $230,450, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The jury was entitled to resolve questions of credibility and conflicting expert testimony, and concluded that the appliance fit plaintiff improperly when first made. There is no basis for [285]*285setting aside the verdict. Furthermore, the amount of damages did not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under these circumstances.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J), entered April 24, 2003, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $230,450, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The jury was entitled to resolve questions of credibility and conflicting expert testimony, and concluded that the appliance fit plaintiff improperly when first made. There is no basis for [285]*285setting aside the verdict. Furthermore, the amount of damages did not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under these circumstances.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 284, 776 N.Y.S.2d 788, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krechmer-v-mintzer-nyappdiv-2004.