Hyperlawhypertext legal database Amendola v. Ruggiero 149 N.Y.S. 907

← Cases

Amendola v. Ruggiero

149 N.Y.S. 907 Court Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and CO■HALAN, JJ. Decision date 1914-11-19 English

Delivered by SEABURY, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 907
AMENDOLA v. RUGGIERO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
November 19, 1914.)

Headnote

Replevin (§ 107[1] ) — 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.

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.