Hohenberg v. Schor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hohenberg v. Schor

41 A.D.2d 665, 341 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 665 (Hohenberg v. Schor) 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

Hohenberg v. Schor, 41 A.D.2d 665, 341 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding inter alla to remove to the Supreme Court from the Civil Court of the City of New York a negligence and nuisance action to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff Rose Hohenberg and loss of services and medical expenses incurred by her husband, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 2, 1972, which denied the application. Order modified, by striking from the decretal paragraph thereof the words “in all respects” and adding thereto, immediately after the provision that the motion is “denied”, the following: “except that it is granted insofar as it seeks to amend item 7 of the bill of particulars as set forth in plaintiffs’ proposed bill of particulars and defendant may conduct a further physical examination of the injured plaintiff upon written notice of not less than 10 days.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The amended item 7 shall be deemed to have been served. In our opinion, the allegations in the moving affidavits do not warrant a return of this action to the Supreme Court, where it was initially commenced. However, the bill of particulars should be permitted to be amended so as to reflect the findings of the later physical examination, which the physician deposed were causally related to the accident. Shapiro, Acting P. J., G-ulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding inter alla to remove to the Supreme Court from the Civil Court of the City of New York a negligence and nuisance action to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff Rose Hohenberg and loss of services and medical expenses incurred by her husband, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 2, 1972, which denied the application. Order modified, by striking from the decretal paragraph thereof the words “in all respects” and adding thereto, immediately after the provision that the motion is “denied”, the following: “except that it is granted insofar as it seeks to amend item 7 of the bill of particulars as set forth in plaintiffs’ proposed bill of particulars and defendant may conduct a further physical examination of the injured plaintiff upon written notice of not less than 10 days.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The amended item 7 shall be deemed to have been served. In our opinion, the allegations in the moving affidavits do not warrant a return of this action to the Supreme Court, where it was initially commenced. However, the bill of particulars should be permitted to be amended so as to reflect the findings of the later physical examination, which the physician deposed were causally related to the accident. Shapiro, Acting P. J., G-ulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 665, 341 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hohenberg-v-schor-nyappdiv-1973.