Meyer v. Woolf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyer v. Woolf

4 A.D.2d 753, 164 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4869

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 753 (Meyer v. Woolf) 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

Meyer v. Woolf, 4 A.D.2d 753, 164 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries received as a consequence of negligence, now conceded, the appeal is from the judgment entered on a jury verdict for $20,000. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless respondent stipulate, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon, to reduce the verdict to $12,750, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict was excessive in view of respondent’s failure to prove his medical and hospital bills, and to establish any causal connection between the accident of October 10, 1948 and injuries sustained subsequent to April, 1949. If a new trial be required, the expert medical witness should not be permitted to testify as to respondent’s condition without examination of his hospital record and X rays or to testify that respondent had sustained, inter alia, a traumatic arthritic condition, not mentioned in the complaint or bill of particulars, which might require future operative treatment and expense. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries received as a consequence of negligence, now conceded, the appeal is from the judgment entered on a jury verdict for $20,000. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless respondent stipulate, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon, to reduce the verdict to $12,750, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict was excessive in view of respondent’s failure to prove his medical and hospital bills, and to establish any causal connection between the accident of October 10, 1948 and injuries sustained subsequent to April, 1949. If a new trial be required, the expert medical witness should not be permitted to testify as to respondent’s condition without examination of his hospital record and X rays or to testify that respondent had sustained, inter alia, a traumatic arthritic condition, not mentioned in the complaint or bill of particulars, which might require future operative treatment and expense. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 753, 164 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-woolf-nyappdiv-1957.