Smith v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. King

103 A.D.2d 827, 477 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19464

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

DecidedJuly 23, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.2d 827 (Smith v. King) 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

Smith v. King, 103 A.D.2d 827, 477 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.), dated December 3, 1982, as granted that branch of respondents’ motion which sought to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of damages, unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in damages to the principal sum of $100,000. 11 Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. 11 There was a sound basis for the reduction of the verdict and the Trial Judge properly exercised his discretion. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.), dated December 3, 1982, as granted that branch of respondents’ motion which sought to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of damages, unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in damages to the principal sum of $100,000. 11 Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. 11 There was a sound basis for the reduction of the verdict and the Trial Judge properly exercised his discretion. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.2d 827, 477 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-king-nyappdiv-1984.