Norton v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Norton v. Hoffman

64 A.D.2d 965

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 965 (Norton v. Hoffman) 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

Norton v. Hoffman, 64 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the appeals are from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 8, 1977, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the ad damnum clause from $500,000 to $1,000,000. Order reversed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and motion denied. There was a two-year delay in making the motion to amend the ad damnum clause. Although no new facts were discovered, a new attorney is of the opinion that plaintiffs’ damages exceed $500,000. The original demand appears sufficient to compensate the infant plaintiff for her injuries which are primarily cosmetic. Under the circumstances presented, it was an abuse of discretion to grant the motion. Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Suozzi, 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, etc., the appeals are from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 8, 1977, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the ad damnum clause from $500,000 to $1,000,000. Order reversed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and motion denied. There was a two-year delay in making the motion to amend the ad damnum clause. Although no new facts were discovered, a new attorney is of the opinion that plaintiffs’ damages exceed $500,000. The original demand appears sufficient to compensate the infant plaintiff for her injuries which are primarily cosmetic. Under the circumstances presented, it was an abuse of discretion to grant the motion. Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-hoffman-nyappdiv-1978.