Quain v. Buzzetta Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quain v. Buzzetta Construction Corp.

119 A.D.2d 426, 500 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55394

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

DecidedApril 1, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 426 (Quain v. Buzzetta Construction 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

Quain v. Buzzetta Construction Corp., 119 A.D.2d 426, 500 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered July 22, 1985, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and a new trial ordered solely on the issue of damages, unless plaintiff Rose Quain and plaintiffs Arlene Holzman and Norman Quain, within 20 days after service upon their attorney of a copy of the order to be entered herein, with notice of entry, serve and file a written stipulation consenting to a reduction of the verdict in their favor to $275,000 and $5,000, respectively, and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If the plaintiffs so [427]*427stipulate, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be excessive to the extent indicated.

The appeal from the order entered on February 20, 1985, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a trial preference, is dismissed, without costs, as abandoned. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Fein, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered July 22, 1985, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and a new trial ordered solely on the issue of damages, unless plaintiff Rose Quain and plaintiffs Arlene Holzman and Norman Quain, within 20 days after service upon their attorney of a copy of the order to be entered herein, with notice of entry, serve and file a written stipulation consenting to a reduction of the verdict in their favor to $275,000 and $5,000, respectively, and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If the plaintiffs so [427]*427stipulate, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be excessive to the extent indicated.

The appeal from the order entered on February 20, 1985, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a trial preference, is dismissed, without costs, as abandoned. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Fein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 426, 500 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quain-v-buzzetta-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1986.