From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marie M. v. Jeffrey T.M

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 9, 1991
77 N.Y.2d 981 (N.Y. 1991)

Opinion

Decided May 9, 1991

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Frederick A. Dickinson, J.

John Jay Gochman for appellant.

Barry Birbrower, Walter I. Seligsohn and Cathey A. Taft for respondent.


On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for so much of the opinion by Justice Sondra Miller at the Appellate Division ( 159 A.D.2d 52) as concluded that the issue of punitive damages was properly submitted to the jury. We further note that the argument with respect to the alleged excessiveness of the jury's verdict does not present a law question in this case and is thus beyond the province of this Court's review.

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA.


Summaries of

Marie M. v. Jeffrey T.M

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 9, 1991
77 N.Y.2d 981 (N.Y. 1991)
Case details for

Marie M. v. Jeffrey T.M

Case Details

Full title:LAURIE MARIE M., Respondent, v. JEFFREY T.M., Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 9, 1991

Citations

77 N.Y.2d 981 (N.Y. 1991)

Citing Cases

Zgraggen v. Wilsey

We affirm. The elements of a cause of action for battery are bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive…

Welter v. Feigenbaum

In order to recover damages for battery, plaintiff must prove that "there was bodily contact, that the…