Lesser v. Brookside Hotel, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lesser v. Brookside Hotel, Inc.

61 A.D.2d 878, 402 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10365

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 A.D.2d 878 (Lesser v. Brookside Hotel, 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

Lesser v. Brookside Hotel, Inc., 61 A.D.2d 878, 402 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered February 11, 1976 in Ulster County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term in favor of plaintiffs. On this appeal plaintiffs seek a reversal and new trial limited solely to the issue of damages upon the ground that the verdict as rendered is grossly inadequate. There must be an affirmance. The bulk of plaintiffs’ claim for damages was based on loss of earnings, pain and suffering. Presented essentially with questions of credibility, the jury plainly chose not to accept all the contentions offered by plaintiffs on those subjects and it had the perfect right to do so. After examining the record, we cannot say the result is such that would shock the conscience of the court (Hallenbeck v Caiazzo, 41 AD2d 789; Shapp v Simmons, 31 AD2d 666). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered February 11, 1976 in Ulster County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term in favor of plaintiffs. On this appeal plaintiffs seek a reversal and new trial limited solely to the issue of damages upon the ground that the verdict as rendered is grossly inadequate. There must be an affirmance. The bulk of plaintiffs’ claim for damages was based on loss of earnings, pain and suffering. Presented essentially with questions of credibility, the jury plainly chose not to accept all the contentions offered by plaintiffs on those subjects and it had the perfect right to do so. After examining the record, we cannot say the result is such that would shock the conscience of the court (Hallenbeck v Caiazzo, 41 AD2d 789; Shapp v Simmons, 31 AD2d 666). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 878, 402 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lesser-v-brookside-hotel-inc-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack