Case ID: ad_199/html/0959-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harris Zwisohn, Respondent, v. Rosedale Dairy Co., Inc., Appellant.
    
      Appeal — amount of verdict — defendant cannot base demand for reduction of verdict on absence of evidence which was rejected by court on defendant’s objection.
    
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office February 11, 1921, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered February 18, 1921, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
   Per Curiam:

Ordinarily, it would have been necessary for the plaintiff in this action to have proved the reasonable value of the services rendered to him by Dr. Wiener, but in view of the fact that the receipt of such proper proof was objected to by defendant’s attorney upon the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only for moneys actually paid to the doctor, which objection was in effect sustained by the court, we are of opinion that the defendant is in no position now to urge the absence of such proof as a reason for reducing the amount of this recovery, in view of the further facts that there was received in evidence a bill of Dr. Wiener for his services to plaintiff in the amount of $1,500, and that his services, as testified to at length, would sustain a bill for that sum. The judgment and order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.