Gerard v. 331 Madison Avenue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gerard v. 331 Madison Avenue Corp.

20 A.D.2d 776, 247 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4204

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 776 (Gerard v. 331 Madison Avenue Corp.) 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

Gerard v. 331 Madison Avenue Corp., 20 A.D.2d 776, 247 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 8, 1963, denying plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum clause in her complaint, but without prejudice to renewal upon proper medical proof, unanimously modified, upon the laws, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of denying said motion unconditionally, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. Plaintiff brought on this motion more than 11 years after she first instituted suit. She does not base her application upon injuries additional to those alleged in her bill of particulars, which was served in 1955. In view of this circumstance, and the inordinate delay in making this motion, it should be denied unconditionally. Concur—Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 8, 1963, denying plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum clause in her complaint, but without prejudice to renewal upon proper medical proof, unanimously modified, upon the laws, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of denying said motion unconditionally, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. Plaintiff brought on this motion more than 11 years after she first instituted suit. She does not base her application upon injuries additional to those alleged in her bill of particulars, which was served in 1955. In view of this circumstance, and the inordinate delay in making this motion, it should be denied unconditionally. Concur—Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 776, 247 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerard-v-331-madison-avenue-corp-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack