Hector Grant Interiors Ltd. v. Solomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hector Grant Interiors Ltd. v. Solomon

199 A.D.2d 57, 605 N.Y.S.2d 860

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 57 (Hector Grant Interiors Ltd. v. Solomon) 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

Hector Grant Interiors Ltd. v. Solomon, 199 A.D.2d 57, 605 N.Y.S.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 30, [58]*581993, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended complaint with an increased ad damnum clause and to transfer this action from the Civil Court of the City of New York to Supreme Court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the requested relief. Since a substantial portion of the revised damages amount was not revealed until defendants’ New Jersey home was inspected in October 1992, and since the instant motion was filed within 3 months thereafter, plaintiffs delay in seeking relief was not inordinate. Moreover, we note that defendants have not controverted any of the specific amounts claimed by plaintiff or shown that they would be prejudiced if the requested relief were granted (see, Kushner v Queens Tr. Corp., 97 AD2d 432). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 30, [58]*581993, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended complaint with an increased ad damnum clause and to transfer this action from the Civil Court of the City of New York to Supreme Court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the requested relief. Since a substantial portion of the revised damages amount was not revealed until defendants’ New Jersey home was inspected in October 1992, and since the instant motion was filed within 3 months thereafter, plaintiffs delay in seeking relief was not inordinate. Moreover, we note that defendants have not controverted any of the specific amounts claimed by plaintiff or shown that they would be prejudiced if the requested relief were granted (see, Kushner v Queens Tr. Corp., 97 AD2d 432). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 57, 605 N.Y.S.2d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hector-grant-interiors-ltd-v-solomon-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack