
    George Gubbitosi, as Administrator, etc., of James Gubbitosi, Deceased, Respondent, v. Isaac Rothschild and Leopold Rothschild, Appellants.
    
      Verdict fm' a substantial amount for the negligent hilling of a boy under six yearrsof age — not set aside as inadequate.
    
    In an action to recover damages for the negligent killing of a hoy not quite six years of age, a verdict of $200 rendered in favor of the plaintiff will not be set aside upon the ground that it is inadequate.
    Appeal by the defendants, Isaac Rothschild and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at'the New York Trial Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of February, 1902, setting aside as inadequate the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff for $200 rendered upon the trial of the action and granting a new trial.
    
      Carl Sohurz Petasch, for the appellants.
    
      Louis Ojypenheim, for the respondent.
   Ingraham, J.:

The action was brought to recover damages for the negligent killing of the plaintiff’s son, a boy not quite six years of • age. The jury awarded the plaintiff $200, when, upon motion of the plaintiff, the court set aside this verdict and directed a new trial upon the ground that the amount allowed was inadequate. Ho other error is alleged which would justify the court in setting aside this verdict.

We have lately held in the case of Terhune v. Cody Contracting Co. (72 App. Div. 1) that in an action of this character, where the jury are required to ascertain the pecuniary injury caused to the next of kin by the death of the decedent and the verdict is limited to such a sum as the jury deem to be a fair and just compensation for such pecuniary injuries to the person or persons for whose benefit the action is brought, the court is unable to say that in the case of the killing of a young child the death of the child had caused pecuniary loss to the child’s parents, and that where a substantial amount has been awarded the trial court is not justified in setting aside the verdict on the ground that it is inadequate.

It follows that the order appealed from must be reversed and the motion for a new trial denied, but, under the circumstances, without costs.

Yam Brunt, P. J., Patterson and Hatch, JJ., concurred ; Laughlin, J., concurred in result.

Order reversed and motion denied, without costs.  