Poitevien v. Montefusco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Poitevien v. Montefusco

105 A.D.2d 735, 481 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20849

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.2d 735 (Poitevien v. Montefusco) 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

Poitevien v. Montefusco, 105 A.D.2d 735, 481 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated September 2, 1983, which denied his motion to remove this action back to the Supreme Court from the Civil Court and increase the ad damnum clause.

Order modified by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion seeking an increase in the ad damnum clause to $1,000,000 and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under all the circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion to modify Special Term’s order so as to increase the ad damnum clause while allowing the case to remain in the Civil Court (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18; Rutkowski v Geist, 96 AD2d 900; Fahy v Hertz Corp., 92 AD2d 581). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated September 2, 1983, which denied his motion to remove this action back to the Supreme Court from the Civil Court and increase the ad damnum clause.

Order modified by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion seeking an increase in the ad damnum clause to $1,000,000 and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under all the circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion to modify Special Term’s order so as to increase the ad damnum clause while allowing the case to remain in the Civil Court (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18; Rutkowski v Geist, 96 AD2d 900; Fahy v Hertz Corp., 92 AD2d 581). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 735, 481 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poitevien-v-montefusco-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack