Viscomi v. S. S. Kresge Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Viscomi v. S. S. Kresge Co.

142 A.D.2d 987, 530 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15023

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 1988·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously vacated on the law with costs to plaintiff and new trial granted on the issue of damages only. Memorandum: The jury’s award of damages was patently inadequate, based on the proof at trial of special damages and pain and suffering, and a new trial on the issue of damages is required (Ladd v Parkhurst, 87 AD2d 971). We have examined defendant’s,arguments on its appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, DiFlorio, J.— negligence.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously vacated on the law with costs to plaintiff and new trial granted on the issue of damages only. Memorandum: The jury’s award of damages was patently inadequate, based on the proof at trial of special damages and pain and suffering, and a new trial on the issue of damages is required (Ladd v Parkhurst, 87 AD2d 971). We have examined defendant’s,arguments on its appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, DiFlorio, J.— negligence.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Viscomi v. S. S. Kresge Co., 142 A.D.2d 987, 530 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

142 A.D.2d 987 (Viscomi v. S. S. Kresge Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related