Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Advocates
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Advocates

PAUL D. VADALA et al., Appellants, v. RANDALL CARROLL, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division's determination that it was error to have set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, although appealable, is beyond the scope of our review ( Aiello v Garahan, 58 N.Y.2d 1078; Mongelli Carting Co. v Nassau Ins. Co., 57 N.Y.2d 649; Gutin v Mascali Sons, 11 N.Y.2d 97; see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], § 148, p 588). Due to the posture in which this case comes before us, there must be an automatic affirmance ( Goehle v Town of Smithtown, 55 N.Y.2d 995; Rochester Tel. Corp. v Green Is. Constr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 788; Pfohl v Wipperman, 34 N.Y.2d 597).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER and SIMONS concur; Judge FUCHSBERG taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

VADALA v. CARROLL
(May 11, 1983)