Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Kovit v. Estate of Hallums
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 10, 1999Published
1Concurrence
Friedmann, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part and votes to reverse the judgment and order a new trial on the issue of damages only with the following memorandum: It is well established that where an apparently inconsistent or illogical verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evi*444dence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view (see, Koopersmith v General Motors Corp., 63 AD2d 1013, 1014; Fitzsimmons v Wilder Mfg. Co., 53 AD2d 743; 8 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 58:19). An allegation that a verdict is inconsistent or irreconcilable…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- H. R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Rubin v. PecoraroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Schaefer v. GuddemiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.