Murphy v. Ruemenapp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Ruemenapp

39 A.D.2d 923, 333 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417

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

DecidedJune 5, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 923 (Murphy v. Ruemenapp) 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

Murphy v. Ruemenapp, 39 A.D.2d 923, 333 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, loss of services, etc., (1) plaintiffs Rhodes appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 24, 1972, as denied the branch of their motion, pursuant to CPLR 3403 (subd. [a], par. 3), which was for a special trial preference; and (2) defendants Mann cross-appeal from so much of the same order as granted the branch of said plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the complaint so as to increase the ad damnum on behalf of plaintiff Pearl Rhodes from $50,000 to $100,000 and to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. Order modified, by striking therefrom the decretal provision denying the motion of plaintiffs Rhodes insofar as it was for a special trial preference and substituting therefor a provision granting such relief. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants-respondents jointly against defendants appearing separately. In our opinion, Special Term improvidently exercised its dis[924]*924eretion in denying the branch of the motion of plaintiffs Rhodes which was for a special trial preference in the interests of justice. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, loss of services, etc., (1) plaintiffs Rhodes appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 24, 1972, as denied the branch of their motion, pursuant to CPLR 3403 (subd. [a], par. 3), which was for a special trial preference; and (2) defendants Mann cross-appeal from so much of the same order as granted the branch of said plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the complaint so as to increase the ad damnum on behalf of plaintiff Pearl Rhodes from $50,000 to $100,000 and to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. Order modified, by striking therefrom the decretal provision denying the motion of plaintiffs Rhodes insofar as it was for a special trial preference and substituting therefor a provision granting such relief. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants-respondents jointly against defendants appearing separately. In our opinion, Special Term improvidently exercised its dis[924]*924eretion in denying the branch of the motion of plaintiffs Rhodes which was for a special trial preference in the interests of justice. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 923, 333 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-ruemenapp-nyappdiv-1972.