Moskowitz v. Emar Service Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moskowitz v. Emar Service Corp.

12 A.D.2d 821, 210 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12981

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 821 (Moskowitz v. Emar Service Corp.) 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

Moskowitz v. Emar Service Corp., 12 A.D.2d 821, 210 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In three consolidated actions to recover damages for injuries to person and property, for medical expenses and for loss of services, the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 19, 1959, after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of the several plaintiffs against defendant Goldberg, and in favor of defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp. (doing business as Utopia Auto Laundry), dismissing as against them the plaintiffs’ several complaints. Defendant Goldberg appeals from the whole judgment. All the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment insofar as it dismisses their respective complaints against defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp. Judgment, insofar as it is against defendant Goldberg and in favor of each of the plaintiffs, other than the plaintiff Sadie Cohen, affirmed, without costs. Judgment, insofar as it is against defendant Goldberg and in favor of plaintiff Sadie Cohen (in Action No. 2), reversed on the facts and, as to said plaintiff, the action is severed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, said plaintiff shall stipulate to reduce the verdict in her favor from $100,000 to $75,000; in which event the judgment in her favor, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. Appeal by defendant Goldberg, insofar as it is taken from the portions of the judgment which dismiss the plaintiffs’ respective complaints against defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp., dismissed. As to such portions of the judgment the defendant Goldberg is not a party aggrieved. On plaintiffs’ appeal: Judgment, [822]*822insofar as it dismisses their respective complaints against defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp., affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff .Sadie Cohen is excessive. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In three consolidated actions to recover damages for injuries to person and property, for medical expenses and for loss of services, the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 19, 1959, after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of the several plaintiffs against defendant Goldberg, and in favor of defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp. (doing business as Utopia Auto Laundry), dismissing as against them the plaintiffs’ several complaints. Defendant Goldberg appeals from the whole judgment. All the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment insofar as it dismisses their respective complaints against defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp. Judgment, insofar as it is against defendant Goldberg and in favor of each of the plaintiffs, other than the plaintiff Sadie Cohen, affirmed, without costs. Judgment, insofar as it is against defendant Goldberg and in favor of plaintiff Sadie Cohen (in Action No. 2), reversed on the facts and, as to said plaintiff, the action is severed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, said plaintiff shall stipulate to reduce the verdict in her favor from $100,000 to $75,000; in which event the judgment in her favor, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. Appeal by defendant Goldberg, insofar as it is taken from the portions of the judgment which dismiss the plaintiffs’ respective complaints against defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp., dismissed. As to such portions of the judgment the defendant Goldberg is not a party aggrieved. On plaintiffs’ appeal: Judgment, [822]*822insofar as it dismisses their respective complaints against defendants Rosen and Emar Service Corp., affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff .Sadie Cohen is excessive. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 821, 210 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moskowitz-v-emar-service-corp-nyappdiv-1961.