Medvejer v. Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medvejer v. Katz

138 A.D.2d 361, 525 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2111

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.2d 361 (Medvejer v. Katz) 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

Medvejer v. Katz, 138 A.D.2d 361, 525 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by the plaintiffs for "clarification” of a decision and order of this court, dated June 22, 1987, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 17, 1986.

Ordered that the motion is granted, and the following sentence is added to the end of the last paragraph of the decision and order: "However, since the defendants failed to timely stipulate to the increase in damages to $23,000, the plaintiffs are entitled to an adjudication of damages de novo, at which time the jury, if the evidence warrants it, may award the plaintiffs in excess of $23,000”. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Motion by the plaintiffs for "clarification” of a decision and order of this court, dated June 22, 1987, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 17, 1986.

Ordered that the motion is granted, and the following sentence is added to the end of the last paragraph of the decision and order: "However, since the defendants failed to timely stipulate to the increase in damages to $23,000, the plaintiffs are entitled to an adjudication of damages de novo, at which time the jury, if the evidence warrants it, may award the plaintiffs in excess of $23,000”. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 361, 525 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medvejer-v-katz-nyappdiv-1988.