Case ID: nys_149/html/0907-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SEABURY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AMENDOLA v. RUGGIERO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    November 19, 1914.)
    Replevin (§ 107) — Alternative Judgment.
    In replevin, it was error to award judgment for the plaintiff in conversion for the value of the property; and the judgment should have awarded plaintiff the chattels sued for, or their value.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Replevin, Cent. Dig. §§ 424-428; Dec. Dig. § 107.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District. '
    'Action by Mary Amendola against Vito Ruggiero. From a judgment for plaintiff for $40.50 and costs, defendant appeals.
    Modified and affirmed.
    Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and CO■HALAN, JJ.
    Gabriel Rubino, of New York City, for appellant.
    Felix Antonacchio, of New York City, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to Sate, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sued in replevin to recover a gold watch chain and a bracelet, alleged to be worth $40.50, or the thereof. The court below awarded judgment for the plaintiff in conversion for $40.50.

The judgment is modified, by striking out the provision awarding judgment in conversion, and so as to award the plaintiff the chattels sued for, or $40.50, the value thereof. As modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs to either party. All concur.