Nicks v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicks v. Joseph

81 A.D.2d 788, 439 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11432

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

DecidedMay 19, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 788 (Nicks v. Joseph) 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

Nicks v. Joseph, 81 A.D.2d 788, 439 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered October 7, 1980, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum clause from $200,000 to $500,000, unanimously modified, on the law, and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to deny so much of plaintiff’s motion as sought to increase the ad damnum and, except as thus modified, affirmed. Subsequent to the trial of the liability issue, which was determined in her favor, and almost on the eve of the damage trial, plaintiff moved to amend the ad damnum from $200,000 to $500,000, an increase of 150%. The injury claimed as justification for the increase was known for at least three and one-half years and no excuse was offered for the inordinate delay in making the application. In such circumstances it was inappropriate to grant the application. Moreover i we believe the present ad damnum is sufficient in light of the injuries claimed. Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Carro and Markewich, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered October 7, 1980, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum clause from $200,000 to $500,000, unanimously modified, on the law, and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to deny so much of plaintiff’s motion as sought to increase the ad damnum and, except as thus modified, affirmed. Subsequent to the trial of the liability issue, which was determined in her favor, and almost on the eve of the damage trial, plaintiff moved to amend the ad damnum from $200,000 to $500,000, an increase of 150%. The injury claimed as justification for the increase was known for at least three and one-half years and no excuse was offered for the inordinate delay in making the application. In such circumstances it was inappropriate to grant the application. Moreover i we believe the present ad damnum is sufficient in light of the injuries claimed. Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Carro and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 788, 439 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicks-v-joseph-nyappdiv-1981.