Solomon v. Franklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Solomon v. Franklin

25 A.D.2d 512, 267 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4943

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 512 (Solomon v. Franklin) 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

Solomon v. Franklin, 25 A.D.2d 512, 267 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements and a new trial granted unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $15,000 in lieu of the amount awarded, in which event the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We agree that the evidence presented no issue and that Trial Term properly directed a verdict for the plaintiff. However, the verdict of the jury, doubtless influenced by the gross nature of the negligence and the possibility of its doing far greater harm than it actually did, made an excessive award. We believe that $15,000 represents adequate compensation for the injuries actually suffered. Settle order on notice.

Concur — -Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements and a new trial granted unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $15,000 in lieu of the amount awarded, in which event the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We agree that the evidence presented no issue and that Trial Term properly directed a verdict for the plaintiff. However, the verdict of the jury, doubtless influenced by the gross nature of the negligence and the possibility of its doing far greater harm than it actually did, made an excessive award. We believe that $15,000 represents adequate compensation for the injuries actually suffered. Settle order on notice.

Concur — -Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 512, 267 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-franklin-nyappdiv-1966.