Samuels v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Samuels v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.

262 A.D.2d 178, 691 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6778

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

DecidedJune 17, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 178 (Samuels v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.) 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

Samuels v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co., 262 A.D.2d 178, 691 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 28, [179]*1791998, which transferred the action to Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record, which was plaintiffs burden to prepare as appellant, is inadequate to permit review of plaintiffs claim that there is no reason to suppose that its damages are likely to be within Civil Court’s monetary jurisdiction. Indeed, the record is completely bereft of any evidence bearing upon damages. Since no record was made of the conference at which the IAS Court decided to transfer the action, we affirm (cf., E.P. Reynolds, Inc. v Nager Elec. Co., 17 NY2d 51, 56). In any event, the transfer cannot prejudice plaintiff since the action was originally commenced in Supreme Court, and thus any verdict plaintiff might recover would not be subject to Civil Court’s monetary jurisdiction (CPLR 325 [d]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 28, [179]*1791998, which transferred the action to Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record, which was plaintiffs burden to prepare as appellant, is inadequate to permit review of plaintiffs claim that there is no reason to suppose that its damages are likely to be within Civil Court’s monetary jurisdiction. Indeed, the record is completely bereft of any evidence bearing upon damages. Since no record was made of the conference at which the IAS Court decided to transfer the action, we affirm (cf., E.P. Reynolds, Inc. v Nager Elec. Co., 17 NY2d 51, 56). In any event, the transfer cannot prejudice plaintiff since the action was originally commenced in Supreme Court, and thus any verdict plaintiff might recover would not be subject to Civil Court’s monetary jurisdiction (CPLR 325 [d]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 178, 691 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuels-v-cauldwell-wingate-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack