Molina v. Mendon Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Molina v. Mendon Leasing Corp.

271 A.D.2d 385, 708 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4633

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

DecidedApril 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 385 (Molina v. Mendon Leasing Corp.) 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

Molina v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 271 A.D.2d 385, 708 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered August 23, 1999, which, in this personal injury action, granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum and for an order transferring this action from Civil Court to Supreme Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the absence of prejudice to the defendant, a motion to amend the ad damnum clause should generally be granted (Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 21-22; [386]*386Sahdala v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 251 AD2d 70). Accordingly, as no prejudice attributable to the amendment proposed by plaintiffs was shown by defendants, the motion court’s grant of the requested relief should be affirmed. We have reviewed defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, 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 August 23, 1999, which, in this personal injury action, granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum and for an order transferring this action from Civil Court to Supreme Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the absence of prejudice to the defendant, a motion to amend the ad damnum clause should generally be granted (Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 21-22; [386]*386Sahdala v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 251 AD2d 70). Accordingly, as no prejudice attributable to the amendment proposed by plaintiffs was shown by defendants, the motion court’s grant of the requested relief should be affirmed. We have reviewed defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 385, 708 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molina-v-mendon-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack