Sampter v. Dilbert's Quality Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sampter v. Dilbert's Quality Supermarkets, Inc.

10 A.D.2d 695, 197 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10993

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 695 (Sampter v. Dilbert's Quality Supermarkets, Inc.) 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

Sampter v. Dilbert's Quality Supermarkets, Inc., 10 A.D.2d 695, 197 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order setting aside verdict and directing a new trial unanimously affirmed, with costs to abide the event. The ease was given to the jury upon two theories (1) express contract under which plaintiff could recover 5% of the net moneys accruing to the defendant from the underwriting and (2) quantum meruit. While there may be some evidence to support a finding that there was an agreement to pay the plaintiff 5% of a sum up to $500,000 there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that there was such an agreement with respect to the sum of money ultimately received by the defendant. It appears from the colloquy between court and jury that the verdict was based upon an express agreement, but there is a possibility that the jury arrived at its decision on the theory of quantum meruit, If the jury found an express [696]*696contract, the order setting aside the verdict must be affirmed for the reason above given. And, if there were sufficient evidence to support a finding on the theory of quantum meruit, it must likewise be set aside because there is no way of determining that the jury did arrive at its verdict on that theory (Phillipson v. Ninno, 233 N. Y. 223; Clark v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 304 N. Y. 488). Concur — Rabin, J. P., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Order setting aside verdict and directing a new trial unanimously affirmed, with costs to abide the event. The ease was given to the jury upon two theories (1) express contract under which plaintiff could recover 5% of the net moneys accruing to the defendant from the underwriting and (2) quantum meruit. While there may be some evidence to support a finding that there was an agreement to pay the plaintiff 5% of a sum up to $500,000 there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that there was such an agreement with respect to the sum of money ultimately received by the defendant. It appears from the colloquy between court and jury that the verdict was based upon an express agreement, but there is a possibility that the jury arrived at its decision on the theory of quantum meruit, If the jury found an express [696]*696contract, the order setting aside the verdict must be affirmed for the reason above given. And, if there were sufficient evidence to support a finding on the theory of quantum meruit, it must likewise be set aside because there is no way of determining that the jury did arrive at its verdict on that theory (Phillipson v. Ninno, 233 N. Y. 223; Clark v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 304 N. Y. 488). Concur — Rabin, J. P., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 695, 197 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sampter-v-dilberts-quality-supermarkets-inc-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack