Pacheco v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pacheco v. New York City Transit Authority

223 A.D.2d 494, 637 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 752

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 494 (Pacheco v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Pacheco v. New York City Transit Authority, 223 A.D.2d 494, 637 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered March 8, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum clause, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly granted plaintiffs motion to increase the ad damnum clause since there was no prejudice to defendant (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18). The belatedness of the amendment and the exposure of defen[495]*495dant to greater liability do not, standing alone, constitute cognizable prejudice (Dolan v Garden City Union Free School Dist., 113 AD2d 781, 785). Furthermore, "[t]he matter of allowing an amendment is committed 'almost entirely to the court’s discretion to be determined on a sui generis basis’ ” (Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 404-405), which discretion was appropriately exercised herein. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered March 8, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum clause, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly granted plaintiffs motion to increase the ad damnum clause since there was no prejudice to defendant (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18). The belatedness of the amendment and the exposure of defen[495]*495dant to greater liability do not, standing alone, constitute cognizable prejudice (Dolan v Garden City Union Free School Dist., 113 AD2d 781, 785). Furthermore, "[t]he matter of allowing an amendment is committed 'almost entirely to the court’s discretion to be determined on a sui generis basis’ ” (Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 404-405), which discretion was appropriately exercised herein. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 494, 637 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacheco-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack