Kim v. Wai Hing Tang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kim v. Wai Hing Tang

289 A.D.2d 23, 733 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11629

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 23 (Kim v. Wai Hing Tang) 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

Kim v. Wai Hing Tang, 289 A.D.2d 23, 733 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered September 21, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion to remove the action from Civil Court to Supreme Court and amend the complaint so as to increase the ad damnum clause from $25,000 to $1 million, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied for lack of a recent medical affidavit setting forth the nature of plaintiffs injury and its present and future extent and consequences, and whether such were not previously apparent or considered (see, Detrinca v De Fillippo, 165 AD2d 505, 511). We reject plaintiffs’ attorneys’ argument that the inadequacy of the demand is apparent from the medical reports dated shortly after the accident almost three years before the instant motion was made. We also find the proposed addendum of a derivative cause of action on behalf of a new party to be prejudicial to defendant. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered September 21, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion to remove the action from Civil Court to Supreme Court and amend the complaint so as to increase the ad damnum clause from $25,000 to $1 million, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied for lack of a recent medical affidavit setting forth the nature of plaintiffs injury and its present and future extent and consequences, and whether such were not previously apparent or considered (see, Detrinca v De Fillippo, 165 AD2d 505, 511). We reject plaintiffs’ attorneys’ argument that the inadequacy of the demand is apparent from the medical reports dated shortly after the accident almost three years before the instant motion was made. We also find the proposed addendum of a derivative cause of action on behalf of a new party to be prejudicial to defendant. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 23, 733 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kim-v-wai-hing-tang-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack