Sidrawski v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sidrawski v. Martinez

73 A.D.2d 668, 423 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14515

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 668 (Sidrawski v. Martinez) 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

Sidrawski v. Martinez, 73 A.D.2d 668, 423 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 4, 1979, which denied his motion for leave to increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint from $100,000 to $1,000,000. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion Special Term did not abuse its discretion. Plaintiff’s moving papers failed to advise the court of the fact that, as stated in the opposition papers, "It should be noted that the plaintiff has made three previous applications to the court for similar relief.” Plaintiff has submitted no' reply affidavit explaining the nature of the three prior applications the dispositions thereon, and how this application is different from the prior applications. O’Connor, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, 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, etc., plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 4, 1979, which denied his motion for leave to increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint from $100,000 to $1,000,000. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion Special Term did not abuse its discretion. Plaintiff’s moving papers failed to advise the court of the fact that, as stated in the opposition papers, "It should be noted that the plaintiff has made three previous applications to the court for similar relief.” Plaintiff has submitted no' reply affidavit explaining the nature of the three prior applications the dispositions thereon, and how this application is different from the prior applications. O’Connor, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 668, 423 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidrawski-v-martinez-nyappdiv-1979.