From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poole v. Consolidated Rail Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 13, 1992
181 A.D.2d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

concluding that, under Monessen and Kaiser Aluminum, trial court erred by denying motion to vacate portion of judgment awarding interest from date of verdict to entry of judgment

Summary of this case from Kinworthy v. Soo Line R.R. Co.
See 1 Summary

Opinion

March 13, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs (see, Eschberger v Consolidated Rail Corp., 181 A.D.2d 1073 [decided herewith]).

Summaries of

Poole v. Consolidated Rail Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 13, 1992
181 A.D.2d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

concluding that, under Monessen and Kaiser Aluminum, trial court erred by denying motion to vacate portion of judgment awarding interest from date of verdict to entry of judgment

Summary of this case from Kinworthy v. Soo Line R.R. Co.
Case details for

Poole v. Consolidated Rail Corporation

Case Details

Full title:DAVID L. POOLE, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 13, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
583 N.Y.S.2d 65

Citing Cases

Kinworthy v. Soo Line R.R. Co.

; Paniccia v. Long Island R.R., 297 A.D.2d 366, 746 N.Y.S.2d 607, 608 (N.Y.App.Div.2002) (citing Monessen and…

1 Citing Cases