Tri-State Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Paramount Macaroni Manufacturing Co.

247 A.D.2d 606, 669 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1735
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 23, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 606 (Tri-State Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Paramount Macaroni Manufacturing Co.) 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
Tri-State Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Paramount Macaroni Manufacturing Co., 247 A.D.2d 606, 669 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs appeal, [607]*607as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated December 9, 1996, as set aside the jury verdict as excessive and awarded them damages in the sum of only $200,000, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order and judgment as denied its motion for a new trial.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified by deleting the provision thereof which awarded the plaintiffs damages in the sum of $200,000; as so modified', the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial as to damages.

While we agree with the Supreme Court that the damage award was excessive, we find no support in the record for the amount fixed by the court. In addition, we note that it was procedurally improper for the court to enter a judgment reducing the award of damages without ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless the plaintiffs stipulated to reduce the verdict (see, CPLR 4404 [a]; Hastings v Jonathan Cass, Inc., 213 AD2d 595; Anderson v Stephen M. Donis, D.P.M., P. C., 150 AD2d 414).

Miller, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Giambruno v. Crazy Donkey Bar & Grill
65 A.D.3d 1190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Leger v. Chasky
55 A.D.3d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Harding v. Onibokun
14 Misc. 3d 790 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
McNeil v. MCST Preferred Transportation Co.
301 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Santiago v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
278 A.D.2d 220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
K. Capolino Construction Corp. v. White Plains Housing Authority
275 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 606, 669 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-state-aluminum-products-inc-v-paramount-macaroni-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1998.