Moore v. Allen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Allen

261 A.D.2d 455, 687 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4779

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

DecidedMay 10, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 455 (Moore v. Allen) 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

Moore v. Allen, 261 A.D.2d 455, 687 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Willie L. Allen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated April 20, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the ad damnum clause to the extent of increasing the ad damnum clause from $750,000 to $2,000,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to amend the ad damnum clause [456]*456(see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 22-23; Duggal Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 224 AD2d 357; Pacheco v New York City Tr. Auth., 223 AD2d 494, 495; Continental Cas. Co. v R.S. Look, Inc., 212 AD2d 1064). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 defendant Willie L. Allen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated April 20, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the ad damnum clause to the extent of increasing the ad damnum clause from $750,000 to $2,000,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to amend the ad damnum clause [456]*456(see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 22-23; Duggal Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 224 AD2d 357; Pacheco v New York City Tr. Auth., 223 AD2d 494, 495; Continental Cas. Co. v R.S. Look, Inc., 212 AD2d 1064). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 455, 687 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-allen-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack