Trestman v. Richard L. Heimer, P.E., P. C.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Trestman v. Richard L. Heimer, P.E., P. C.

163 Misc. 2d 987, 625 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 149

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 5, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 Misc. 2d 987 (Trestman v. Richard L. Heimer, P.E., P. C.) 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

Trestman v. Richard L. Heimer, P.E., P. C., 163 Misc. 2d 987, 625 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[988]*988OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment and order reversed without costs, and motion to set aside the verdict granted to the extent of vacating the award for damages and remanding the matter to the court below for a new trial limited solely to the issue of damages.

In this action to recover damages for negligence and breach of contract, plaintiffs established the liability of defendant in failing to make the proper inspection of their home. One issue raised by defendant for the setting aside of the verdict, the inadvertent reading of a letter, had minimal significance on the substantive issues of this case. However, the issue raised as to the excessiveness of the award for damages requires a new trial.

The testimony of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs consisted of the defendant as a hostile witness and a Mr. D’Alonzo (another witness, who inspected the house, made no estimate as to the cost of repairs). The expert witness for the plaintiff testified based on photographs shown to him, photographs that he did not take. The witnesses for the defendant testified based on their actual inspection of the premises. This court concludes that the finding of the jury as to damages was against the weight of the credible evidence and that a new trial is required on the issue of damages.

Stark, J. P., and Collins, J., concur; Luciano, J., taking no part.

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

[988]*988OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment and order reversed without costs, and motion to set aside the verdict granted to the extent of vacating the award for damages and remanding the matter to the court below for a new trial limited solely to the issue of damages.

In this action to recover damages for negligence and breach of contract, plaintiffs established the liability of defendant in failing to make the proper inspection of their home. One issue raised by defendant for the setting aside of the verdict, the inadvertent reading of a letter, had minimal significance on the substantive issues of this case. However, the issue raised as to the excessiveness of the award for damages requires a new trial.

The testimony of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs consisted of the defendant as a hostile witness and a Mr. D’Alonzo (another witness, who inspected the house, made no estimate as to the cost of repairs). The expert witness for the plaintiff testified based on photographs shown to him, photographs that he did not take. The witnesses for the defendant testified based on their actual inspection of the premises. This court concludes that the finding of the jury as to damages was against the weight of the credible evidence and that a new trial is required on the issue of damages.

Stark, J. P., and Collins, J., concur; Luciano, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 Misc. 2d 987, 625 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trestman-v-richard-l-heimer-pe-p-c-nyappterm-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack