McCallister v. Kapadia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCallister v. Kapadia

179 A.D.2d 802

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 27, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[803] The plaintiffs’ motion to increase the ad damnum clause was supported by proof with respect to the severity of the injuries for which compensation is sought, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that the granting of the motion would cause any substantial prejudice. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion (see generally, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18; Messina v Portobello, 112 AD2d 923; Gold v Huntington Town House, 64 AD2d 885; Koupash v Grand Union Co., 34 AD2d 695). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, O’Brien and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

[803] The plaintiffs’ motion to increase the ad damnum clause was supported by proof with respect to the severity of the injuries for which compensation is sought, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that the granting of the motion would cause any substantial prejudice. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion (see generally, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18; Messina v Portobello, 112 AD2d 923; Gold v Huntington Town House, 64 AD2d 885; Koupash v Grand Union Co., 34 AD2d 695). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, O’Brien and Miller, JJ., concur.

McCallister v. Kapadia, 179 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

179 A.D.2d 802 (McCallister v. Kapadia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related