Nardelli v. Stamberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nardelli v. Stamberg

55 A.D.2d 929, 390 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10187

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 929 (Nardelli v. Stamberg) 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

Nardelli v. Stamberg, 55 A.D.2d 929, 390 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution and false arrest, defendants appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 7, 1975, which, upon a jury verdict, was in favor of plaintiff and against them in the amount of $50,000 ($15,000 representing compensatory damages and $35,000 representing exemplary damages), and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 10, 1975, which denied their motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict and for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted with respect to the issue of compensatory damages only, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after entry of the order [930]*930to be made hereon, plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor to $5,000, representing compensatory damages, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event, the judgment in his favor, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The findings of fact as to liability are affirmed. The award of compensatory damages was excessive to the extent indicated herein. The award of exemplary damages was inappropriate under the circumstances. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Shapiro and Suozzi, 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 malicious prosecution and false arrest, defendants appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 7, 1975, which, upon a jury verdict, was in favor of plaintiff and against them in the amount of $50,000 ($15,000 representing compensatory damages and $35,000 representing exemplary damages), and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 10, 1975, which denied their motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict and for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted with respect to the issue of compensatory damages only, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after entry of the order [930]*930to be made hereon, plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor to $5,000, representing compensatory damages, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event, the judgment in his favor, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The findings of fact as to liability are affirmed. The award of compensatory damages was excessive to the extent indicated herein. The award of exemplary damages was inappropriate under the circumstances. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Shapiro and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 929, 390 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nardelli-v-stamberg-nyappdiv-1977.