Schildhaus v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schildhaus v. City of New York

10 A.D.2d 566, 195 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12021

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 26, 1960·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of direction, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event, unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $6,000, in which event the judgment is modified and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The damages awarded plaintiff are excessive in the [567] circumstances. Although special damages are reflected in the verdict, the proof thereof in respect of the first cause of action is too vague, indefinite and insubstantial to warrant the verdict rendered. Concur — M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.; Breitel, J. P. and Valente, J., dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum: We dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that the assessment of damages for false imprisonment is one peculiarly in the province of the jury. Moreover, in the case of a professional man, the amount awarded can hardly be said to be excessive. Settle order. [7 Misc 2d 859.]

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

Judgment reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of direction, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event, unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $6,000, in which event the judgment is modified and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The damages awarded plaintiff are excessive in the [567] circumstances. Although special damages are reflected in the verdict, the proof thereof in respect of the first cause of action is too vague, indefinite and insubstantial to warrant the verdict rendered. Concur — M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.; Breitel, J. P. and Valente, J., dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum: We dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that the assessment of damages for false imprisonment is one peculiarly in the province of the jury. Moreover, in the case of a professional man, the amount awarded can hardly be said to be excessive. Settle order. [7 Misc 2d 859.]

Schildhaus v. City of New York, 10 A.D.2d 566, 195 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

10 A.D.2d 566 (Schildhaus v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Thomas Rosario, Ovidio Vega and Ray Cabel v. Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, I.L.G.W.U., Abe Dolgen, Individually and as Manager of Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, I.L.G.W.U., and the City of New York, Thomas Rosario, Ovidio Vega and Ray Cabel v. Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, I.L.G.W.U., and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Afl-Cio

605 F.2d 1228 (Second Circuit, 1979)

White v. State

67 A.D.2d 1015 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Opinion

Related