Pagliuca v. Police Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pagliuca v. Police Department

87 A.D.2d 586, 447 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15853

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 586 (Pagliuca v. Police Department) 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

Pagliuca v. Police Department, 87 A.D.2d 586, 447 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered May 22, 1980, after a jury trial, as awarded damages to plaintiffs Robert and Kathleen Pagliuca. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting the fifth decretal paragraph, which awarded damages to Kathleen Pagliuca, and by substituting a provision dismissing her cause of action. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The jury’s award of damages to Kathleen Pagliuca for loss of her husband Robert’s services and consortium was improper given its finding that there was no proximate [587]*587causation between the underlying battery and Robert’s condition. (See Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803.) We have considered appellants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., O’Connor, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered May 22, 1980, after a jury trial, as awarded damages to plaintiffs Robert and Kathleen Pagliuca. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting the fifth decretal paragraph, which awarded damages to Kathleen Pagliuca, and by substituting a provision dismissing her cause of action. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The jury’s award of damages to Kathleen Pagliuca for loss of her husband Robert’s services and consortium was improper given its finding that there was no proximate [587]*587causation between the underlying battery and Robert’s condition. (See Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803.) We have considered appellants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., O’Connor, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 586, 447 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagliuca-v-police-department-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack