Jesselli v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jesselli v. City of New York

59 A.D.2d 755, 398 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13780

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 755 (Jesselli v. City of New York) 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

Jesselli v. City of New York, 59 A.D.2d 755, 398 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated January 11, 1977, which denied (1) their renewal motion for a general preference and (2) their motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. Order reversed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly by defendants-respondents, and renewal motion for a general preference and motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars granted. The supplemental bill of particulars in the form annexed to the moving papers is deemed served. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny plaintiffs’ renewal motion for a general preference. Plaintiffs established that Sara Jesselli’s injuries might warrant a recovery in excess of the $10,000 jurisdictional limitation of the Civil Court (see Coletto v Keogh, 44 AD2d 712). It was similarly an improvident exercise of discretion to deny plaintiffs leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. Where plaintiffs have shown a prima facie basis for their additional claims, and defendants have claimed no prejudice, leave to supplement a bill of particulars should be freely given (see 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3041.21). Latham, J. P., Cohalan, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., Concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated January 11, 1977, which denied (1) their renewal motion for a general preference and (2) their motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. Order reversed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly by defendants-respondents, and renewal motion for a general preference and motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars granted. The supplemental bill of particulars in the form annexed to the moving papers is deemed served. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny plaintiffs’ renewal motion for a general preference. Plaintiffs established that Sara Jesselli’s injuries might warrant a recovery in excess of the $10,000 jurisdictional limitation of the Civil Court (see Coletto v Keogh, 44 AD2d 712). It was similarly an improvident exercise of discretion to deny plaintiffs leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. Where plaintiffs have shown a prima facie basis for their additional claims, and defendants have claimed no prejudice, leave to supplement a bill of particulars should be freely given (see 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3041.21). Latham, J. P., Cohalan, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 755, 398 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesselli-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack