Poole v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Poole v. Hertz Corp.

65 A.D.2d 787, 410 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13647

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A.D.2d 787 (Poole v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Poole v. Hertz Corp., 65 A.D.2d 787, 410 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 28, 1978, which denied her motion to (1) remove the action to that court from the Civil Court of the City of New York, (2) increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint and (3) serve a supplemental bill of particulars. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted, with leave to the defendants to conduct further physical and oral examinations of plaintiff and to receive further authorizations for hospital and physicians’ reports. The examinations shall proceed at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days to be given by defendants, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. From the record before us, the injuries sustained could result in a verdict in excess of the monetary limit of the Civil Court of the City of New York. Plaintiff’s papers show a meritorious cause of action and no prejudice from the delay appears or is claimed by defendants (see Decalo v Wearing Apparel Trucking Co., 58 AD2d 640; Darrow v Delñno Crescenzo & Sons, 55 AD2d 635; Moore v Wilson, 51 AD2d 973). Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Titone, 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 28, 1978, which denied her motion to (1) remove the action to that court from the Civil Court of the City of New York, (2) increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint and (3) serve a supplemental bill of particulars. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted, with leave to the defendants to conduct further physical and oral examinations of plaintiff and to receive further authorizations for hospital and physicians’ reports. The examinations shall proceed at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days to be given by defendants, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. From the record before us, the injuries sustained could result in a verdict in excess of the monetary limit of the Civil Court of the City of New York. Plaintiff’s papers show a meritorious cause of action and no prejudice from the delay appears or is claimed by defendants (see Decalo v Wearing Apparel Trucking Co., 58 AD2d 640; Darrow v Delñno Crescenzo & Sons, 55 AD2d 635; Moore v Wilson, 51 AD2d 973). Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 787, 410 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poole-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack