Pinkus v. Esch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinkus v. Esch

257 A.D.2d 366, 682 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 366 (Pinkus v. Esch) 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

Pinkus v. Esch, 257 A.D.2d 366, 682 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered October 10, 1997, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $9,000 and directed a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s determination to set aside the verdict and to order a new trial constituted a proper and, indeed, prudent exercise of its discretionary authority pursuant to CPLR 4404, especially in light of the clear inadequacy of the verdict where the jury found a 35-year permanent disability. We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered October 10, 1997, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $9,000 and directed a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s determination to set aside the verdict and to order a new trial constituted a proper and, indeed, prudent exercise of its discretionary authority pursuant to CPLR 4404, especially in light of the clear inadequacy of the verdict where the jury found a 35-year permanent disability. We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 366, 682 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkus-v-esch-nyappdiv-1999.