Cohen v. City Canal Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
The only evidence introduced as to the value of the merchandise lost was that it was reasonably worth $4,577.49. The jury’s verdict in the sum of $2,400 was obviously a compromise of liability or a compromise of the amount awarded plaintiff, which no hypothesis of the evidence could support. A judgment based on such compromise verdict cannot be sustained. (Friend v. Morris D. Fishman, Inc., 302 N. Y. 389; McDonald v. Walter, 40 N. Y. 551; Van Der Harst v. Koenig, 249 App. Div. 235; Delisky v. Leonard, 189 App. Div. 623; Ferguson v. Chuck, 194 App. Div. 583.)
Moreover, we think, that in the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McDonald v. . WalterNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Van Der Harst v. KoenigAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Friend v. Morris D. Fishman, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Ferguson v. ChuckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Delisky v. LeonardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
3Cited by5 opinions
- Storey v. MadsenOregon Supreme Court · 1976
- Boudreau v. Damas Food Market Corp.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1966
- Workman v. Bolen, New York County Courts1971
- Gilchrist v. Winmar J. Ford, Inc.Nassau County District Court · 1974
- Storey v. MadsenOregon Supreme Court · 1976