Kurtin v. Cating Rope Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kurtin v. Cating Rope Works, Inc.

65 A.D.2d 617, 409 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13309

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 617 (Kurtin v. Cating Rope Works, Inc.) 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

Kurtin v. Cating Rope Works, Inc., 65 A.D.2d 617, 409 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 1, 1978, which granted the plaintiff’s oral application to amend the ad damnum clause from $500,000 to $2,500,-000. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied, without prejudice to renew upon proper papers. The plaintiff made an oral application to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint at a precalendar conference. Special Term granted the application over the defendants’ objection. This court is not prepared to adopt the view of Special Term that an application for the type of relief demanded may be considered on an oral application and without prior notice to the defendant. However, it appears that the application may have merit and the trial of the action is not imminent. Under the circumstances, the motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal at Special Term upon proper papers. Cohalan, J. P., Margett, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 1, 1978, which granted the plaintiff’s oral application to amend the ad damnum clause from $500,000 to $2,500,-000. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied, without prejudice to renew upon proper papers. The plaintiff made an oral application to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint at a precalendar conference. Special Term granted the application over the defendants’ objection. This court is not prepared to adopt the view of Special Term that an application for the type of relief demanded may be considered on an oral application and without prior notice to the defendant. However, it appears that the application may have merit and the trial of the action is not imminent. Under the circumstances, the motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal at Special Term upon proper papers. Cohalan, J. P., Margett, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 617, 409 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurtin-v-cating-rope-works-inc-nyappdiv-1978.