Seay v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seay v. Williams

37 A.D.2d 1009, 325 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 1009 (Seay v. Williams) 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

Seay v. Williams, 37 A.D.2d 1009, 325 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from judgments of the Supreme Court, Albany County, entered upon jury verdicts at Trial Term and from orders of the same court denying appellants’ motion to set aside the verdicts as inadequate. On the instant record we are involved with an infant and we feel that the judgment in his case is inadequate and that it should be raised to $20,000. It is our opinion, considering the proof introduced by the appellants that the jury could properly limit the award in the derivative action of appellant James E. Seay to $3,600. Judgment and order reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and a new trial, limited to the issue of damages, ordered in the ease of Peter F. Seay, unless within 20 days after the service of the order to be entered hereon defendant stipulates to increase the verdict to $20,000, in which event judgment and order, as so modified, affirmed, with costs. Judgment and order in the derivative action affirmed without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Greenblott, Cooke, Sweeney and Simons, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals from judgments of the Supreme Court, Albany County, entered upon jury verdicts at Trial Term and from orders of the same court denying appellants’ motion to set aside the verdicts as inadequate. On the instant record we are involved with an infant and we feel that the judgment in his case is inadequate and that it should be raised to $20,000. It is our opinion, considering the proof introduced by the appellants that the jury could properly limit the award in the derivative action of appellant James E. Seay to $3,600. Judgment and order reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and a new trial, limited to the issue of damages, ordered in the ease of Peter F. Seay, unless within 20 days after the service of the order to be entered hereon defendant stipulates to increase the verdict to $20,000, in which event judgment and order, as so modified, affirmed, with costs. Judgment and order in the derivative action affirmed without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Greenblott, Cooke, Sweeney and Simons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 1009, 325 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seay-v-williams-nyappdiv-1971.