Woolcock v. Peter Doelger Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woolcock v. Peter Doelger Construction Corp.

17 A.D.2d 772, 232 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7933

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 772 (Woolcock v. Peter Doelger Construction Corp.) 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

Woolcock v. Peter Doelger Construction Corp., 17 A.D.2d 772, 232 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted solely on the question of damages, without costs to either party. The grossly excessive award in this personal injury negligence action is not supported by the record. The deficiency in medical testimony is due apparently to certain concessions which were misunderstood both as to scope and effect. The absence of such testimony precludes effective appellate review, and it would seem that a new trial rather than an effort to adjust the damages would be a more just solution. (Cf. Chasis v. Progressive Electronics, 15 A D 2d 776.) Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted solely on the question of damages, without costs to either party. The grossly excessive award in this personal injury negligence action is not supported by the record. The deficiency in medical testimony is due apparently to certain concessions which were misunderstood both as to scope and effect. The absence of such testimony precludes effective appellate review, and it would seem that a new trial rather than an effort to adjust the damages would be a more just solution. (Cf. Chasis v. Progressive Electronics, 15 A D 2d 776.) Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 772, 232 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolcock-v-peter-doelger-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1962.