Harrison v. Saltzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harrison v. Saltzman

233 A.D.2d 296, 649 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11630

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 296 (Harrison v. Saltzman) 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

Harrison v. Saltzman, 233 A.D.2d 296, 649 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated November 3, 1995, which denied her motion (1) pursuant to CPLR 325 (b) to remove the action pending in Civil Court, Queens County, to Supreme Court, Queens County, (2) pursuant to CPLR 3025 (d) for leave to amend the ad damnum clause in the complaint from $25,000 to $250,000, and (3) for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff failed to offer sufficient proof that the original injuries alleged were greater than or different from those originally contemplated. Therefore, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of her motion which was to increase the ad damnum of the complaint (see, Matter of Kornfeld v Wagner, 12 NY2d 348; see also, Kushner v Queens Tr. Corp., 97 AD2d 432; Lee v Klein, 54 AD2d 753). As a result, the court also properly denied the remaining branches of her motion. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated November 3, 1995, which denied her motion (1) pursuant to CPLR 325 (b) to remove the action pending in Civil Court, Queens County, to Supreme Court, Queens County, (2) pursuant to CPLR 3025 (d) for leave to amend the ad damnum clause in the complaint from $25,000 to $250,000, and (3) for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff failed to offer sufficient proof that the original injuries alleged were greater than or different from those originally contemplated. Therefore, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of her motion which was to increase the ad damnum of the complaint (see, Matter of Kornfeld v Wagner, 12 NY2d 348; see also, Kushner v Queens Tr. Corp., 97 AD2d 432; Lee v Klein, 54 AD2d 753). As a result, the court also properly denied the remaining branches of her motion. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 296, 649 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-saltzman-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack