Tarsel v Trombino
Annotate this CaseDecided on November 10, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., NEMOYER, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.
768 CA 21-01464
[*1]MICHAEL J. TARSEL AND SUZANNE M. TARSEL, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v
JAMES J. TROMBINO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PULLANO & FARROW, ROCHESTER (MALLORY K. SMITH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (KAREN G. FELTER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Clark, J.), entered September 30, 2021. The order, inter alia, ordered defendant to pay punitive damages to plaintiffs in an amount to be determined after discovery and a hearing.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.
Entered: November 10, 2022
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.