Spitzer v. Abraham & Straus

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Spitzer v. Abraham & Straus

113 Misc. 2d 629, 453 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3351

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 113 Misc. 2d 629 (Spitzer v. Abraham & Straus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spitzer v. Abraham & Straus, 113 Misc. 2d 629, 453 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order unanimously modified by granting plaintiff’s motion only to the extent of setting aside the verdict in favor of defendant and ordering a trial de nova and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

At the outset, we note that “[t]he duty of the judge to supervise the reasonableness of the verdicts returned to him ought to be viewed liberally on appeal because the independence of mind with which that duty is exercised is ingredient to the sound health of the judicial process.” (Mann v Hunt, 283 App Div 140, 141.) Thus, to the extent that the lower court set aside the verdict in favor of defendant, this court, upon review, cannot conclude that such disposition constituted an improvident exercise of [630]*630discretion. However, the evidence adduced at trial on behalf of the defendant controverting plaintiff’s contentions cannot be deemed as a matter of law to be so meager or inadequate as to merit directing a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Accordingly, there should be a new trial on the issue of liability as well as damages.

Pino, P. J., Buschmann and Jones, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order unanimously modified by granting plaintiff’s motion only to the extent of setting aside the verdict in favor of defendant and ordering a trial de nova and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

At the outset, we note that “[t]he duty of the judge to supervise the reasonableness of the verdicts returned to him ought to be viewed liberally on appeal because the independence of mind with which that duty is exercised is ingredient to the sound health of the judicial process.” (Mann v Hunt, 283 App Div 140, 141.) Thus, to the extent that the lower court set aside the verdict in favor of defendant, this court, upon review, cannot conclude that such disposition constituted an improvident exercise of [630]*630discretion. However, the evidence adduced at trial on behalf of the defendant controverting plaintiff’s contentions cannot be deemed as a matter of law to be so meager or inadequate as to merit directing a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Accordingly, there should be a new trial on the issue of liability as well as damages.

Pino, P. J., Buschmann and Jones, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 Misc. 2d 629, 453 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spitzer-v-abraham-straus-nyappterm-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack