Case Name: Michael Silberberg, Trading under the Firm Name and Style of Empire Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. M. Ascher Silk Corporation, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-02
Citations: 208 A.D. 766
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael Silberberg, Trading under the Firm Name and Style of Empire Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. M. Ascher Silk Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 208
Pages: 766–766

Head Matter:
Michael Silberberg, Trading under the Firm Name and Style of Empire Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. M. Ascher Silk Corporation, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the New York county clerk’s office February 5, 1923, upon the verdict of a jury; also from an order entered February 3, 1923, allowing interest upon the verdict, and also from an order entered January 31, 1923, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Smith, Merrell, Finch and Martin, JJ.; Clarke, P. J., and Merrell, J. dissent.

Opinion:
Clarke, P. J.
(dissenting):
The verdict, in my opinion, was clearly against the weight of the evidence. Furthermore, plaintiff having sued for $25,000, and the court having charged at the request of plaintiff's counsel that if the jury behoved the plaintiff's story and plaintiff's witnesses they might find a verdict for the plaintiff for $6,615, besides interest, and the jury having returned a verdict for $2,500, there is no basis in the evidence for such a finding, and it was evidently a compromise verdict. I, therefore, dissent and vote to reverse and grant a new trial.