Legal Opinion

La Rocco v. Penn Central Transportation Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 5, 1972PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Motion to amend the remittitur denied. The effect on the surety’s liability under the appeal bond by this court’s modification may be determined in an action on the bond, and not by repetitive motions addressed to amendment of the remittitur. It may be observed, however, that the holding in abeyance of the money verdict, that is, the assessment of damages without correlative liability, pending retrial on the issue of liability, did not continue any obligation to pay once the issue of liability had been reopened (see 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error, § 1033; with which compare the situation…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jackson v. Lawyers' Surety Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  2. Jackson v. . Lawyers' Surety Company of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
  3. Tripi v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  4. Morse v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Claim of Aragona v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  2. In re Penn Central Transportation Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API