Schwerzler v. Farina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwerzler v. Farina

58 A.D.2d 731, 395 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12848

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

DecidedJune 3, 1977

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 731 (Schwerzler v. Farina) 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

Schwerzler v. Farina, 58 A.D.2d 731, 395 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: This case was tried with Miller v Farina, (58 AD2d 731), and for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision in that case, we find no merit in the objections raised by appellants to the jury’s determination of the issues herein or the conduct of the trial. Also in view of the severity of plaintiffs injuries and the difficulty and length of treatments with recurring expenses, pain, discomfort and hardship reasonable to be anticipated in the future the verdict was not excessive. (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Supreme Court—automobile negligence.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: This case was tried with Miller v Farina, (58 AD2d 731), and for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision in that case, we find no merit in the objections raised by appellants to the jury’s determination of the issues herein or the conduct of the trial. Also in view of the severity of plaintiffs injuries and the difficulty and length of treatments with recurring expenses, pain, discomfort and hardship reasonable to be anticipated in the future the verdict was not excessive. (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Supreme Court—automobile negligence.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 731, 395 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwerzler-v-farina-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack