Federici v. Polito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Federici v. Polito

198 A.D.2d 261, 603 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10432

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 261 (Federici v. Polito) 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

Federici v. Polito, 198 A.D.2d 261, 603 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), entered August 22, 1991, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint by increasing the ad damnum clause from $100,000 to $1,000,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied, without prejudice to renewal.

The defendants did not waive their right to appeal by engaging in additional discovery which was authorized in the order appealed from (cf., Chirkis v Hutton & Co., 155 AD2d 411; Guillen v 652 Broadway Corp., 168 AD2d 486). Addressing the claim on the merits, we conclude that because the plaintiffs failed to submit a statement from a physician in support [262]*262of their motion, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting it (see, Sylvester v Stephens, 148 AD2d 523). However, in keeping with the liberal policy permitting the amendment of pleadings under appropriate circumstances, the denial of the motion is without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers (see, Sylvester v Stephens, supra). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), entered August 22, 1991, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint by increasing the ad damnum clause from $100,000 to $1,000,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied, without prejudice to renewal.

The defendants did not waive their right to appeal by engaging in additional discovery which was authorized in the order appealed from (cf., Chirkis v Hutton & Co., 155 AD2d 411; Guillen v 652 Broadway Corp., 168 AD2d 486). Addressing the claim on the merits, we conclude that because the plaintiffs failed to submit a statement from a physician in support [262]*262of their motion, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting it (see, Sylvester v Stephens, 148 AD2d 523). However, in keeping with the liberal policy permitting the amendment of pleadings under appropriate circumstances, the denial of the motion is without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers (see, Sylvester v Stephens, supra). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 261, 603 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federici-v-polito-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack