Pavis v. Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pavis v. Scott

82 A.D.2d 800

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

DecidedJune 30, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.2d 800 (Pavis v. Scott) 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

Pavis v. Scott, 82 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Sahn appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Siracuse, J.), dated June 11,1980, which, inter alia, set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of damages. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Trial Term acted properly within its discretion in setting aside the verdict on the issue of damages as contrary to the weight of the evidence. In addition, plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages because of the trial court’s refusal to permit them to voir dire the jury on the question of damages either prior to the onset of the liability phase of the trial or thereafter prior to the commencement of the trial on the issue of damages (see Goerlich v Ippolito, 62 AD2d 1030). Hopkins, J.P., Mangano, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Sahn appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Siracuse, J.), dated June 11,1980, which, inter alia, set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of damages. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Trial Term acted properly within its discretion in setting aside the verdict on the issue of damages as contrary to the weight of the evidence. In addition, plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages because of the trial court’s refusal to permit them to voir dire the jury on the question of damages either prior to the onset of the liability phase of the trial or thereafter prior to the commencement of the trial on the issue of damages (see Goerlich v Ippolito, 62 AD2d 1030). Hopkins, J.P., Mangano, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pavis-v-scott-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack