Decalo v. Wearing Apparel Trucking Co. Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Decalo v. Wearing Apparel Trucking Co. Inc.

58 A.D.2d 640, 396 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12716

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

DecidedJune 27, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 640 (Decalo v. Wearing Apparel Trucking Co. Inc.) 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

Decalo v. Wearing Apparel Trucking Co. Inc., 58 A.D.2d 640, 396 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 16, 1976, which denied her motion: (1) to remove the action to that court from the Civil Court of the City of New York; (2) to increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint; and (3) for leave to serve a supplemental complaint nunc pro tunc. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff’s papers show that she may have a meritorious cause of action and that the delay did not prejudice the defendant (cf. Darrow v Delñno Crescenzo & Sons, 55 AD2d 635). Hopkins, J. P., Hargett, Shapiro and Suozzi, 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 16, 1976, which denied her motion: (1) to remove the action to that court from the Civil Court of the City of New York; (2) to increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint; and (3) for leave to serve a supplemental complaint nunc pro tunc. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff’s papers show that she may have a meritorious cause of action and that the delay did not prejudice the defendant (cf. Darrow v Delñno Crescenzo & Sons, 55 AD2d 635). Hopkins, J. P., Hargett, Shapiro and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 640, 396 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decalo-v-wearing-apparel-trucking-co-inc-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack