Leombruno v. Julian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leombruno v. Julian

264 A.D. 981, 37 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5610

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 A.D. 981 (Leombruno v. Julian) 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

Leombruno v. Julian, 264 A.D. 981, 37 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, on the ground that the verdict was grossly excessive and a new trial granted unless the plaintiff stipulates within ten days after the service of the order to be entered hereon that the verdict and judgment be reduced to $2,500, with costs, in which event the judgment and order are affirmed. Hill, P. J., Bliss and Schenck, JJ., concur; Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., dissent. The appellant in his brief does not ask for reversal upon the weight of evidence. He admits the case was fairly tried and the charge to the jury was meticulously fair. There is nothing to indicate that the verdict of the jury was the result of passion or prejudice and the circumstances justify the verdict as rendered. For these reasons we believe that this court is guilty of an abuse of discretion in interfering with that verdict.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, on the ground that the verdict was grossly excessive and a new trial granted unless the plaintiff stipulates within ten days after the service of the order to be entered hereon that the verdict and judgment be reduced to $2,500, with costs, in which event the judgment and order are affirmed. Hill, P. J., Bliss and Schenck, JJ., concur; Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., dissent. The appellant in his brief does not ask for reversal upon the weight of evidence. He admits the case was fairly tried and the charge to the jury was meticulously fair. There is nothing to indicate that the verdict of the jury was the result of passion or prejudice and the circumstances justify the verdict as rendered. For these reasons we believe that this court is guilty of an abuse of discretion in interfering with that verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 981, 37 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leombruno-v-julian-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack