Hempel v. Jenkins
| Decision Date | 09 April 1969 |
| Citation | 24 N.Y.2d 822,300 N.Y.S.2d 840 |
| Parties | , 248 N.E.2d 592 Arthur E. HEMPEL, Respondent v. Vernon JENKINS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 28 A.D.2d 1068, 284 N.Y.S.2d 26.
Ainsworth, Sullivan, Tracy & Knauf, Albany (John E. Knauf, Frank J. Warner, Jr., Albany, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Orton & Catalfimo, Salem (Julian V. D. Orton, Salem, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
The action was one for personal injuries and automobile property damage sustained by plaintiff as a result of an automobile accident which took place on January 2, 1963. At the conclusion of the case, the jury accepted and found that the defendant was negligent, that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence, and awarded the plaintiff the sum of $1,400 for his personal injuries and property damage.
The Supreme Court, Trial Term, Washington County, Harold R. Soden, J., set aside the jury verdict on ground of inadequacy and granted a new trial on the issue of damages, and the defendant appealed.
The Appellate Division noted that the verdict was just $183.80 over the plaintiff's special damages and was grossly inadequate, and held that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the issues of damage and liability were so intertwined as to defeat separate consideration of them or that the verdict was colored by compromise, and that plaintiff was entitled to new trial only on issue of damages. The order of Trial Term was affirmed.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. The defendant asserted that if the verdict of the jury was properly set aside for inadequacy, a new trial must be of all issues and may not be limited solely to the determination of damages. The defendant also asserted that the verdict was adequate and should not have been set aside.
Order affirmed, with costs. Judgment directed pursuant to appellant's stipulation.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Figliomeni v. Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of Syracuse
...v. Empire Merchandising Co., 33 A.D.2d 565, 305 N.Y.S.2d 245; Hempel v. Jenkins, 28 A.D.2d 1086, 284 N.Y.S.2d 26, affd., 24 N.Y.2d 822, 300 N.Y.S.2d 840, 248 N.E.2d 592; Mercado v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 75, 265 N.Y.S.2d 834; see, generally, New Trial as to Damages Only, Ann., 29 A.L.R......
-
Cooperman v. Ferrentino
...to remand the case for a new trial as to damages alone (Hempel v. Jenkins, 28 A.D.2d 1068, 284 N.Y.S.2d 26, affd. 24 N.Y.2d 822, 300 N.Y.S.2d 840, 248 N.E.2d 592; Nemeth v. Terminal Cleaning Contrs., 30 A.D.2d 518, 290 N.Y.S.2d The plea can be made that Hittner has had no opportunity to pre......
-
Hogue v. Wilson
...Department; Bonder v. Berman, 43 A.D.2d 653, 349 N.Y.S.2d 819; Hempel v. Jenkins, 28 A.D.2d 1068, 284 N.Y.S.2d 26, affd. 24 N.Y.2d 822, 300 N.Y.S.2d 840, 248 N.E.2d 592, Third Department). Recently, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed this rule, sustained an order directing a new trial limited ......
- A'Hearn v. Committee on Unlawful Practice of Law of New York County Lawyers' Assn