Beauchamp v. Lucander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beauchamp v. Lucander

257 A.D.2d 494, 684 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 494 (Beauchamp v. Lucander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beauchamp v. Lucander, 257 A.D.2d 494, 684 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered September 19, 1997, which denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause and for transfer of the action to Supreme Court from the Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (b), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Transfer to Supreme Court was properly denied because at the time the motion therefor was made, a stipulation discontinuing the action was in effect, and thus there was no action pending within the meaning of CPLR 325 (b) to be transferred (cf., Anderson v Monticup, 124 AD2d 320). In any event, the proposed amended complaint fails to allege facts that, if true, indicate damages beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court (see, Matter of Victor v de Maziroff, 275 App Div 69, affd 300 NY 686). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered September 19, 1997, which denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause and for transfer of the action to Supreme Court from the Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (b), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Transfer to Supreme Court was properly denied because at the time the motion therefor was made, a stipulation discontinuing the action was in effect, and thus there was no action pending within the meaning of CPLR 325 (b) to be transferred (cf., Anderson v Monticup, 124 AD2d 320). In any event, the proposed amended complaint fails to allege facts that, if true, indicate damages beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court (see, Matter of Victor v de Maziroff, 275 App Div 69, affd 300 NY 686). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 494, 684 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beauchamp-v-lucander-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack