Longbard v. Wohlgemuth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Longbard v. Wohlgemuth

259 A.D. 925, 20 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7322

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

DecidedMay 27, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 925 (Longbard v. Wohlgemuth) 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

Longbard v. Wohlgemuth, 259 A.D. 925, 20 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages (a) for loss of services of plaintiff’s wife, injured through the negligence of appellant Bundy in the operation of a motor truck owned by appellants Wohlgemuth and Adams, and for medical expenses; and (b) for damages to plaintiff’s automobile, injured through the same negligence. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff [926]*926for $1,000, upon which, judgment was duly entered. From that judgment defendants appeal. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event, on the ground that the verdict as to the amount of damages is against the weight of evidence and excessive, unless within ten days from the entry of the order hereon plaintiff stipulate to reduce to- $604.75 the amount of the verdict rendered in his favor; in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover damages (a) for loss of services of plaintiff’s wife, injured through the negligence of appellant Bundy in the operation of a motor truck owned by appellants Wohlgemuth and Adams, and for medical expenses; and (b) for damages to plaintiff’s automobile, injured through the same negligence. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff [926]*926for $1,000, upon which, judgment was duly entered. From that judgment defendants appeal. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event, on the ground that the verdict as to the amount of damages is against the weight of evidence and excessive, unless within ten days from the entry of the order hereon plaintiff stipulate to reduce to- $604.75 the amount of the verdict rendered in his favor; in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 925, 20 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longbard-v-wohlgemuth-nyappdiv-1940.