Hunt v. Bankers & Shippers Insurance
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- International Fidelity Insurance v. County of Rockland (District Court, S.D. New York 2000)
- Entron, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Insurance (District Court, E.D. New York 1984)
- Barbier v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. (2d Cir. 1991)
- Barbier v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. (2d Cir. 1991)
- Cain v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1982)
- Peguero v. 601 Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- ZARNOCH, JERAD M. v. LUCKINA, ROBERT W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- DeMarco v. DeMarco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Zarnoch v. Luckina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Zarnoch v. Luckina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- State v. Timothy JJ. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Brown v. Reinauer Transportation Companies, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- U.W. Marx, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Zacher v. Oakdale Islandia Ltd. Partnership (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Sabol Sports L. L. C. v. Nassau Precision Casting Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- 23/23 Communications Corp. v. General Motors Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- 23/23 Communications Corp. v. General Motors Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Fidelity New York, FSB v. Aetna Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Gilbride v. American Transit Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Cohen v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Suria v. Shiffman (N.Y. 1986)
- Schiaroli v. Village of Ellenville (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- T. W. Oil, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. (N.Y. 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum.
We are constrained to affirm the order of the Appellate Division, with costs.
It is appellant’s contention that no consequential damages should have been awarded. In returning substantial verdicts for plaintiff it may be that the jury considered legally impermissible elements of such damages when it determined the total amount of damages. In the procedural posture in which the case reaches us it is impossible to determine whether the jury did in fact consider any such elements, and in any event we may not look behind the verdicts of the triers of the facts. The jury returned lump sum general verdicts only on the four causes of action alleged in the complaint; no request was made for special verdicts or answers to written interrogatories (CPLR 4111). Accordingly, any analysis of the arithmetic computations on which the lump sum figures may have been based can be speculative only, however reasonably plausible such analysis may be made to appear. That, however, is a process in which we may not indulge.
Our appellate jurisdiction is ordinarily limited to consideration of issues of law; we have no authority in this instance to review questions of fact. Appellant has failed to preserve for our review the law issues which it asserts underlie the factual determinations of which it now complains. The instructions given the jury in this somewhat complicated commercial case are not a model of either clarity or completeness. However, other than restating requests to charge that had previously been submitted to the court (which requests themselves were erroneous in significant detail), defendant took no sufficient exception to the charge as given and did not otherwise assist the Trial Judge in clarifying or distilling the legal issues as to which it now seeks our review. In consequence of its failure to address the charge with particularity, appellant has failed to preserve legal issues which we may consider.
We have examined appellant’s other contentions with respect to evidentiary rulings by the trial court and find no reversible error. Nor was it error in the circumstances of this case to apply the New York rule of law which allows prejudgment interest.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.