Legal Opinion

Shackman v. Cala

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

Decided January 16, 1945Published

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment afOrmed, with costs. Memorandum: The counterclaim pleads, and the evidence justified the finding of, an intentional tort. (Warschauser v. Brooklyn Furniture Co., 159 App. Div. 81; Scott v. Prudential Outfitting Co., Inc., 92 Misc. 195; Doucette v. Sailinger, 228 Mass. 444.) Punitive damages therefore were properly awarded. From the record we conclude that the verdict was not excessive. All concur. (The judgment affirms a judgment of Buffalo City Court in favor of defendant in an action to recover the purchase price of merchandise.) Present— Taylor, P. J., Dowling, McCurn, Larkin and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Doucette v. SallingerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  2. Warschauser v. Brooklyn Furniture Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
  3. Scott ex rel. Scott v. Prudential Outfitting Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API