Uneeda Doll Co. v. Gibraltar Fabrics, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uneeda Doll Co. v. Gibraltar Fabrics, Inc.

20 A.D.2d 873, 248 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981

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

DecidedApril 21, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 873 (Uneeda Doll Co. v. Gibraltar Fabrics, Inc.) 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

Uneeda Doll Co. v. Gibraltar Fabrics, Inc., 20 A.D.2d 873, 248 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and on the facts to the extent of striking the amount of the damage award, remanding and directing a new trial on the limited issue of damages only, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to respondent. Plaintiff, a doll manufacturer, sought to recover the sum of $10,509.15 for property damage allegedly suffered by it as a result of water seepage from defendant’s premises. There is ample proof of defendant’s negligence proximately causing some loss to plaintiff, but proof of the nature and extent of loss and of the measure of damages is totally inadequate (Dubvner’s Bootery, v. General Outdoor Adv. Go., 10 A D 2d 923) and the award, in amount, is against the weight of the credible evidence. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and on the facts to the extent of striking the amount of the damage award, remanding and directing a new trial on the limited issue of damages only, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to respondent. Plaintiff, a doll manufacturer, sought to recover the sum of $10,509.15 for property damage allegedly suffered by it as a result of water seepage from defendant’s premises. There is ample proof of defendant’s negligence proximately causing some loss to plaintiff, but proof of the nature and extent of loss and of the measure of damages is totally inadequate (Dubvner’s Bootery, v. General Outdoor Adv. Go., 10 A D 2d 923) and the award, in amount, is against the weight of the credible evidence. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 873, 248 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uneeda-doll-co-v-gibraltar-fabrics-inc-nyappdiv-1964.