Shtesl v. Shtesl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shtesl v. Shtesl

224 A.D.2d 515, 637 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1142

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 515 (Shtesl v. Shtesl) 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

Shtesl v. Shtesl, 224 A.D.2d 515, 637 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), entered July 14, 1994, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff Samuel Shtesl [516]*516in the principal sum of only $18,900.60 and failed to award the plaintiff Esther Shtesl damages for loss of consortium.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The award to the plaintiff Samuel Shtesl in the amount of $31,501 for an injury to his hand, which was reduced to the principal sum of $18,900.60 to reflect that he was 40% at fault in the happening of the accident, did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Santucci v Govel Welding, 168 AD2d 845).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), entered July 14, 1994, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff Samuel Shtesl [516]*516in the principal sum of only $18,900.60 and failed to award the plaintiff Esther Shtesl damages for loss of consortium.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The award to the plaintiff Samuel Shtesl in the amount of $31,501 for an injury to his hand, which was reduced to the principal sum of $18,900.60 to reflect that he was 40% at fault in the happening of the accident, did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Santucci v Govel Welding, 168 AD2d 845).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 515, 637 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shtesl-v-shtesl-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack