Case ID: misc2d_15/html/0077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     \n      Hofstadter, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Annemarie Schnase, Respondent, v. Paul Gottschalk, Inc., Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    October 2, 1958.
    
      Horst Kurnih for appellant.
    
      Adolf Hamburger and Fritz Weinschenh for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

In plaintiff’s account there was an item for bookbinding. Admittedly this work was performed and plaintiff paid for it in East Germany. Yet the rate of exchange charged and for which plaintiff has had judgment was for the West German mark. No credible explanation was given for this discrepancy. The difference in exchange amounted to $513.71. Plaintiff’s verdict should therefore have been $1,143.27, plus appropriate interest, and the judgment should be modified accordingly, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Hofstadter, J.

(dissenting). The basis for exchange to be employed in settlement between the parties was properly for the trial court. We must recognize the plain and undeniable fact — perhaps awkward at times — that it is not our province to retry the case — either as to liability or as to damages measuring an award — in the proper exercise of our limited power of review of the facts. Since the trial court has a superior opportunity for deciding contested issues, we should deal discreetly with its considered judgment lest we violate the essential and inherent dignity of the trial forum; in doing so, we do violence to our own. Hence, it is incumbent on us to exercise the power of review at its utmost stretch to sustain a judgment including the award — not to disturb it.

Stetter and Aurelio, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Hofstadter, J., dissents and votes to affirm in opinion.

Judgment modified, etc.