Valence v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valence v. City of Syracuse

236 A.D. 823

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1932·Published

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.)

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

Pincite

236 A.D. 823 (Valence v. City of Syracuse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related