Kletnieks v. Duke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kletnieks v. Duke

51 A.D.2d 768, 379 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11333

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 768 (Kletnieks v. Duke) 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

Kletnieks v. Duke, 51 A.D.2d 768, 379 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 15, 1975, which denied their motion to (1) remove the action from the District Court, Suffolk County, to the Supreme Court, (2) amend their complaint by increasing the ad damnum clause and (3) amend their bill of particulars, without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We believe that it was an [769]*769appropriate exercise of discretion to deny this motion, the third such application; there was no showing by a medical affidavit of (1) a causal connection between the accident and the asserted injury and (2) a course of treatment pertaining thereto. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, 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, Suffolk County, dated January 15, 1975, which denied their motion to (1) remove the action from the District Court, Suffolk County, to the Supreme Court, (2) amend their complaint by increasing the ad damnum clause and (3) amend their bill of particulars, without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We believe that it was an [769]*769appropriate exercise of discretion to deny this motion, the third such application; there was no showing by a medical affidavit of (1) a causal connection between the accident and the asserted injury and (2) a course of treatment pertaining thereto. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 768, 379 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kletnieks-v-duke-nyappdiv-1976.