From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. Mecca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 25, 1977
56 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

February 25, 1977

Appeal from the Wayne Supreme Court.

Present — Moule, J.P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and new trial granted on the issue of damages only unless plaintiff shall within 10 days of the entry of the order herein stipulate to reduce the verdict to $40,000 in which case the judgment is modified accordingly and, as modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: On September 25, 1972, David Lewis, nearly 10 years of age, died in an accident in which the defendants Mecca Farms, Marion Foods, Inc., and Seneca Foods Corp. have been held liable in negligence. The only issue raised on appeal is that the jury award of $65,000 is excessive. While the record shows that David Lewis was a healthy child of high intelligence and that he was helpful and affectionate at home, it fails to demonstrate sufficient pecuniary loss to his parents to sustain the award of damages (see Wishart v Andress, 46 A.D.2d 998). Although it is only in extraordinary circumstances that we will disturb the award of damages by a jury, the verdict here is grossly excessive and must be set aside unless reduced (cf. Livaccari v Zafonte, 48 A.D.2d 20).


Summaries of

Lewis v. Mecca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 25, 1977
56 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Lewis v. Mecca

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD W. LEWIS et al., as Administrators of the Estate of DAVID B…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 25, 1977

Citations

56 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Mueller v. Elderwood Health Care at Oakwood

In support of their argument, defendants rely on cases which are now twenty to thirty-years old ( see…

Ashdown v. Kluckhohn

There are present here no extraordinary circumstances which would justify a disturbance of the jury's award.…