Martin v. Waldbaum's Supermarket

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Waldbaum's Supermarket

172 A.D.2d 804, 569 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5391

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

DecidedApril 29, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 804 (Martin v. Waldbaum's Supermarket) 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

Martin v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, 172 A.D.2d 804, 569 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated November 29, 1989, which denied her motion to remove the action from the Civil Court, Queens County, to the Supreme Court, Queens County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A motion to remove an action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (b) must be accompanied by a request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) (McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 325:2, at 564). Here, the amount stated in the ad damnum clause was within the jurisdictional limits of the Civil Court, and no request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause was made. In the absence of an application to increase the ad damnum clause, the Supreme Court’s denial of removal was proper (see, Francilion v Epstein, 144 AD2d 633, 633-634; Huston v Rao, 74 AD2d 127, 130, 131; 1 Weinstein-[805]*805Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 325.11; Siegel, NY Prac § 25). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated November 29, 1989, which denied her motion to remove the action from the Civil Court, Queens County, to the Supreme Court, Queens County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A motion to remove an action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (b) must be accompanied by a request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) (McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 325:2, at 564). Here, the amount stated in the ad damnum clause was within the jurisdictional limits of the Civil Court, and no request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause was made. In the absence of an application to increase the ad damnum clause, the Supreme Court’s denial of removal was proper (see, Francilion v Epstein, 144 AD2d 633, 633-634; Huston v Rao, 74 AD2d 127, 130, 131; 1 Weinstein-[805]*805Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 325.11; Siegel, NY Prac § 25). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 804, 569 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-waldbaums-supermarket-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack