James D. Vollertsen Associates, Inc. v. John T. Nothnagle, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1975 |
| Citation | 369 N.Y.S.2d 267,48 A.D.2d 1007 |
| Parties | JAMES D. VOLLERTSEN ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Respondents, v. JOHN T. NOTHNAGLE, INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Culley, Marks, Corbett, Tanenbaum, Reifsteck & Potter, Gerard F. Norton, Rochester, for appellants.
Wood & Chesler, Robert F. Wood, Rochester, for respondents.
Before MARSH, P.J., and MOULE, SIMONS, DEL VECCHIO and WITMER, JJ.
In this action plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. The order from which defendants appeal directs them to answer plaintiffs' interrogatory No. 83, namely, 'Set forth the present net worth of each of the above-named Defendants'. The order was premanturely granted (see Rupert et al. v. Sellers et al., 48 A.D.2d 265, 368 N.Y.S.2d 904, decided June 6, 1975). As we said in Rupert (supra), there should be a split trial, first on the issue of defendants' liability for punitive or exemplary damages. If plaintiffs obtain a special verdict entitling them to punitive damages against defendants, they may make immediate application for defendants to answer such interrogatory; and the trial may then be resumed before the same jury, where feasible, with the parties presenting such additional evidence as they see fit on the question of the amount of damages to which plaintiffs are entitled, and the jury shall then determine that question. See also Raplee v. City of Corning, 6 A.D.2d 230, 176 N.Y.S.2d 162 and 25 C.J.S. Damages § 126(3), at page 1170.
Order unanimously reversed without costs and motion denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rupert v. Sellers
...then are the one involved on this appeal and the one in Vollertsen Associates v. Nothnagle, November, 1974, reversed herewith, 48 A.D.2d 1007, 369 N.Y.S.2d 267 (decided June 6, In view of every citizen's right to privacy and the general desire of people not to divulge their wealth, on the o......
-
Olson v. Brenntag N. Am., Inc.
...relevant "on the question of the amount of damages to which plaintiffs are entitled." ( James D. Vollertsen Assoc. v. John T. Nothnagle, Inc. , 48 A.D.2d 1007, 1007, 369 N.Y.S.2d 267 [4th Dept. 1975].)To be sure, the parties should avoid lengthy and potentially duplicative presentations of ......
-
Bank of New York v. Ansonia Associates
...is relevant to the issue of the partnerships' net worth for purposes of punitive damages (see, James D. Vollertsen Assocs. v. John T. Nothnagle, Inc., 48 A.D.2d 1007, 369 N.Y.S.2d 267). Indeed, the deterrent effect of punitive damages will not occur unless the partners' individual net worth......
-
Prior v. Brown Transport Corp.
...N.Y.S.2d 904, see also, Varriale v. Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc., 76 A.D.2d 991, 992, 429 N.Y.S.2d 302; Vollertsen Associates, Inc. v. Nothnagle, Inc., 48 A.D.2d 1007, 369 N.Y.S.2d 267). In the event plaintiffs obtain a special verdict entitling them to punitive damages, they may renew the......