Christopher v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Skordilis v. La Quila Construction, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Mitchell v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Hernandez v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories (New York Supreme Court 2001)
- Aboelkher v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Altmajer v. Morley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Olsen v. Burns (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- New York County DES Litigation v. Abbott Laboratories (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Orris v. West (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Aquino v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Thoda v. Arcoleo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Shurgan v. Tedesco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Lemon v. Nivram Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Morales v. Jolee Consolidators, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Capuccio v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Harrison v. Dombrowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Carson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
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
*1005 OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
On reconsideration, order granting leave to appeal recalled and motion for leave to appeal denied.
This Court granted leave to review the issue whether the Appellate Division incorrectly employed the "shocks the conscience” standard instead of the controlling material deviation from reasonable compensation standard in assessing whether the jury’s verdict was excessive (CPLR 5501 [c]).
Thereafter, the Appellate Division denied defendant’s motion for reargument, stating, however, in its order of denial: "Were we to reconsider defendant’s contention on the merits that the verdict is excessive, we would not conclude that the jury award to plaintiff in the sum of $275,000 'deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation’ under CPLR 5501 (c)”.
Inasmuch as the Appellate Division order denying reargument established that the Appellate Division would not alter its prior order were it to apply the correct standard of review, and as further appellate proceedings would only needlessly delay monetary relief for this 90-year-old plaintiff who was injured in 1984, this case is no longer appropriate for this Court’s review.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
On reconsideration, order granting leave to appeal recalled and motion for leave to appeal denied, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.