Woodward v. City of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woodward v. City of Utica

113 A.D.2d 1011, 494 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52626

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.2d 1011 (Woodward v. City of Utica) 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

Woodward v. City of Utica, 113 A.D.2d 1011, 494 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated in the decision of Lawton, J., on the motion to set aside the verdict. We add only that defendant’s counsel stated in his brief and in the record that the reduction in the verdict to $100,000 "was consented to by both parties in lieu of a new trial and solely on the issue of damages.” (Emphasis added.) Defendant, therefore, cannot now complain about the amount of the verdict. If we were to reach that issue we would hold that the verdict, as reduced, was not excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Lawton, J.—false arrest, battery.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated in the decision of Lawton, J., on the motion to set aside the verdict. We add only that defendant’s counsel stated in his brief and in the record that the reduction in the verdict to $100,000 "was consented to by both parties in lieu of a new trial and solely on the issue of damages.” (Emphasis added.) Defendant, therefore, cannot now complain about the amount of the verdict. If we were to reach that issue we would hold that the verdict, as reduced, was not excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Lawton, J.—false arrest, battery.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.2d 1011, 494 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodward-v-city-of-utica-nyappdiv-1985.