Fenson v. Fox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fenson v. Fox

19 A.D.2d 887, 245 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2998

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 887 (Fenson v. Fox) 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

Fenson v. Fox, 19 A.D.2d 887, 245 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad danmum clause from $6,000 to $100,000 and to transfer the cause from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings, to the Supreme Court. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion denied; and action remitted to the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings, for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, on all the facts presented, the granting of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad danmum clause from $6,000 to $100,000 and to transfer the cause from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings, to the Supreme Court. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion denied; and action remitted to the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings, for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, on all the facts presented, the granting of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 887, 245 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenson-v-fox-nyappdiv-1963.