Moorman v. Meadow Park Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moorman v. Meadow Park Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, LLC

57 A.D.3d 788, 868 N.Y.2d 893

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2008·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[789]*789The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application to remove the action from the Civil Court of the City of New York to the Supreme Court, Queens County (see CPLR 325 [b]). The application was based upon the premise that the petitioner intended to assert a counterclaim seeking damages in excess of the Civil Court’s $25,000 jurisdictional limit. However, it is clear that the Civil Court has jurisdiction over counterclaims in excess of the monetary limitation (see NY Const, art VI, § 15 [b]; CCA 208 [b]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly declined to consider the new arguments or new grounds, asserted for the first time in the petitioner’s reply papers, in support of the relief sought (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Dawkins, 52 AD3d 826 [2008]; Matter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677 [2005]; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658 [1999]). Rivera, J.R, Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

[789]*789The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application to remove the action from the Civil Court of the City of New York to the Supreme Court, Queens County (see CPLR 325 [b]). The application was based upon the premise that the petitioner intended to assert a counterclaim seeking damages in excess of the Civil Court’s $25,000 jurisdictional limit. However, it is clear that the Civil Court has jurisdiction over counterclaims in excess of the monetary limitation (see NY Const, art VI, § 15 [b]; CCA 208 [b]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly declined to consider the new arguments or new grounds, asserted for the first time in the petitioner’s reply papers, in support of the relief sought (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Dawkins, 52 AD3d 826 [2008]; Matter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677 [2005]; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658 [1999]). Rivera, J.R, Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Moorman v. Meadow Park Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, LLC, 57 A.D.3d 788, 868 N.Y.2d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

57 A.D.3d 788 (Moorman v. Meadow Park Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related