Valence v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valence v. City of Syracuse

236 A.D. 823

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 823 (Valence v. City of Syracuse) 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

Valence v. City of Syracuse, 236 A.D. 823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs, All concur, except Edgcomb, J., who dissents and votes for reversal upon the ground that none of the newly-discovered evidence goes to the question of damages, and as the jury has fixed plaintiff’s damages at six cents, the court was not justified in setting the verdict aside and in granting a new trial to enable the plaintiff to recover nominal damages. (Robison v. Lockridge, 230 App. Div. 389, 391; Midland Linseed Products Co. v. Viall, 213 id. 92; Throckmorton v. Evening Post Pub. Co., 35 id. 396.)

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

Order affirmed, with costs, All concur, except Edgcomb, J., who dissents and votes for reversal upon the ground that none of the newly-discovered evidence goes to the question of damages, and as the jury has fixed plaintiff’s damages at six cents, the court was not justified in setting the verdict aside and in granting a new trial to enable the plaintiff to recover nominal damages. (Robison v. Lockridge, 230 App. Div. 389, 391; Midland Linseed Products Co. v. Viall, 213 id. 92; Throckmorton v. Evening Post Pub. Co., 35 id. 396.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valence-v-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack