Sojo v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sojo v. Hertz Corp.

40 A.D.2d 959, 338 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3182

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 959 (Sojo v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Sojo v. Hertz Corp., 40 A.D.2d 959, 338 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 16, 1971, setting aside a jury verdict in the sum of $30,341, and ordering a new trial unless the plaintiff accepts the sum of $20,000, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the motion denied and the verdict reinstated. Appellant shall recover of respondents $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In this wrongful death action, although the age of the decedent was 19 years at the time of her death, in view of her earning capacity and expectancy, and the fact that she was working at the time, we are unable to say that the verdict of the jury was so grossly excessive as to shock judicial conscience or that there was not an adequate basis in the record for this verdict. (Cf. Birkett v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 110 N. Y. 504, 508; Sitkiewitz v. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 245 App. Div. 737.) Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman, Murphy and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 16, 1971, setting aside a jury verdict in the sum of $30,341, and ordering a new trial unless the plaintiff accepts the sum of $20,000, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the motion denied and the verdict reinstated. Appellant shall recover of respondents $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In this wrongful death action, although the age of the decedent was 19 years at the time of her death, in view of her earning capacity and expectancy, and the fact that she was working at the time, we are unable to say that the verdict of the jury was so grossly excessive as to shock judicial conscience or that there was not an adequate basis in the record for this verdict. (Cf. Birkett v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 110 N. Y. 504, 508; Sitkiewitz v. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 245 App. Div. 737.) Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman, Murphy and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 959, 338 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sojo-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack