Zeigler v. Neely

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zeigler v. Neely

220 A.D.2d 345, 633 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10459

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 345 (Zeigler v. Neely) 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

Zeigler v. Neely, 220 A.D.2d 345, 633 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered November 23, 1994, which, after a jury trial, inter alia, awarded the infant plaintiff the sum of $275,000 and his natural guardian the sum of $12,500, and bringing up for review an order of the same court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about March 9, 1994, which set aside a jury verdict finding both parties equally liable and awarding no damages, and directed a new trial on the issue of damages only, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the award of damages to the natural guardian, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly set aside the jury verdict in the first trial (CPLR 4404 [a]) and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages only. A review of the record of that trial leads us to conclude that the findings of liability and apportionment of fault were amply supported by the record and were not infected by the jury’s failure to award damages in the face of the uncontroverted testimony of plaintiffs’ medical expert (Figliomeni v Board of Educ., 38 NY2d 178).

With respect to the second trial, we find the court erred in-submitting the infant plaintiff’s natural guardian’s loss of services claim to the jury since the parties had previously entered into a stipulation in open court withdrawing said cause of action, and further, there has been no evidence to warrant the award of such damages. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered November 23, 1994, which, after a jury trial, inter alia, awarded the infant plaintiff the sum of $275,000 and his natural guardian the sum of $12,500, and bringing up for review an order of the same court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about March 9, 1994, which set aside a jury verdict finding both parties equally liable and awarding no damages, and directed a new trial on the issue of damages only, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the award of damages to the natural guardian, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly set aside the jury verdict in the first trial (CPLR 4404 [a]) and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages only. A review of the record of that trial leads us to conclude that the findings of liability and apportionment of fault were amply supported by the record and were not infected by the jury’s failure to award damages in the face of the uncontroverted testimony of plaintiffs’ medical expert (Figliomeni v Board of Educ., 38 NY2d 178).

With respect to the second trial, we find the court erred in-submitting the infant plaintiff’s natural guardian’s loss of services claim to the jury since the parties had previously entered into a stipulation in open court withdrawing said cause of action, and further, there has been no evidence to warrant the award of such damages. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 345, 633 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeigler-v-neely-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack