Murray v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

60 A.D.2d 570, 400 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14506

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 5, 1977·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 16, 1976, which denied their motion (a) for leave to serve an amended complaint and (b) to remove the action to the Supreme Court and (2) as limited by their brief, so much of an order of the same court, dated April 1, 1977, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination. Order dated November 16, 1976 dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order dated April 1, 1977, affirmed insofar as appealed from. Respondents are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Under the circumstances presented, the Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion, which, in effect, sought to increase the ad damnum clause of their complaint (see Ferrari v Paramount Plumbing & Heating Co., 20 AD2d 878; Koi v P.S. & M. Catering Corp., 15 AD2d 775). Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Suozzi and O’Connor, 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 breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 16, 1976, which denied their motion (a) for leave to serve an amended complaint and (b) to remove the action to the Supreme Court and (2) as limited by their brief, so much of an order of the same court, dated April 1, 1977, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination. Order dated November 16, 1976 dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order dated April 1, 1977, affirmed insofar as appealed from. Respondents are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Under the circumstances presented, the Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion, which, in effect, sought to increase the ad damnum clause of their complaint (see Ferrari v Paramount Plumbing & Heating Co., 20 AD2d 878; Koi v P.S. & M. Catering Corp., 15 AD2d 775). Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Murray v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 60 A.D.2d 570, 400 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

60 A.D.2d 570 (Murray v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related