Bell v. Margolis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bell v. Margolis

82 A.D.2d 817, 441 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14483

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

DecidedJune 8, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 817 (Bell v. Margolis) 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

Bell v. Margolis, 82 A.D.2d 817, 441 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants Margolis and Schumer and the third-party defendants appeal from so much of an ordér of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated January 22,1980, as granted plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of their motion for leave to (1) amend their complaint by increasing the ad damnum clause as to the first cause of action and (2) serve a supplemental bill of particulars, and, upon reargument, granted said motion. Order modified, by deleting the second and fourth decretal paragraphs and substituting a provision adhering to the original determination. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to renewal upon a proper showing of a causal connection between the allegedly increased injuries and the accident sued upon. (See London v Moore, 32 AD2d 543; Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y. v Kregsman, 26 AD2d 648.) Damiani, J.P., Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants Margolis and Schumer and the third-party defendants appeal from so much of an ordér of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated January 22,1980, as granted plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of their motion for leave to (1) amend their complaint by increasing the ad damnum clause as to the first cause of action and (2) serve a supplemental bill of particulars, and, upon reargument, granted said motion. Order modified, by deleting the second and fourth decretal paragraphs and substituting a provision adhering to the original determination. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to renewal upon a proper showing of a causal connection between the allegedly increased injuries and the accident sued upon. (See London v Moore, 32 AD2d 543; Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y. v Kregsman, 26 AD2d 648.) Damiani, J.P., Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 817, 441 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-margolis-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack