Ramirez v. Mezquita

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. Mezquita

19 A.D.2d 866, 244 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2993

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 866 (Ramirez v. Mezquita) 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

Ramirez v. Mezquita, 19 A.D.2d 866, 244 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, entered March 15, 1963, insofar as it is against defendant Raymond Bigham, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to said defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed. Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff Agripina Ramirez, against the defendants, other than Bigham, unanimously affirmed, with costs to said plaintiff-respondent. Judgment insofar as it is in favor of plaintiffs Lourdes Ramirez and Anthony Carrion, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and as to said plain[867]*867tiffs, the action is severed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless said plaintiffs, within 10 days after the service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry, shall stipulate: (a) to reduce to $10,000 the amount of the verdict in favor of plaintiff Lourdes Ramirez; and (b) to reduce to $500 the amount of the verdict in favor of plaintiff Anthony Carrion, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. The record fails to demonstrate a prima facie case of negligence in the operation of the Bigham vehicle which was the proximate cause of the three-car collision. Furthermore, in our opinion, the amounts of the verdict as rendered in favor of plaintiffs, Lourdes Ramirez and Anthony Carrion, were clearly excessive. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment, entered March 15, 1963, insofar as it is against defendant Raymond Bigham, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to said defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed. Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff Agripina Ramirez, against the defendants, other than Bigham, unanimously affirmed, with costs to said plaintiff-respondent. Judgment insofar as it is in favor of plaintiffs Lourdes Ramirez and Anthony Carrion, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and as to said plain[867]*867tiffs, the action is severed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless said plaintiffs, within 10 days after the service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry, shall stipulate: (a) to reduce to $10,000 the amount of the verdict in favor of plaintiff Lourdes Ramirez; and (b) to reduce to $500 the amount of the verdict in favor of plaintiff Anthony Carrion, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. The record fails to demonstrate a prima facie case of negligence in the operation of the Bigham vehicle which was the proximate cause of the three-car collision. Furthermore, in our opinion, the amounts of the verdict as rendered in favor of plaintiffs, Lourdes Ramirez and Anthony Carrion, were clearly excessive. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 866, 244 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-mezquita-nyappdiv-1963.