Steiger v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steiger v. City of New York

43 A.D.2d 927, 352 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 927 (Steiger v. City of New York) 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

Steiger v. City of New York, 43 A.D.2d 927, 352 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, [928]*928entered June 36, 1972 denying plaintiff’s motion to remove the action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court, to increase the ad damnum clause of his complaint and. for related relief, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and said motion granted, without costs and without disbursements. The claimed injuries arose when, on March 20, 1968, plaintiff was thrown from his motorcycle after it struck an unguarded hole. An action was commenced in Civil Court in April, 1969, predicated on the belief that plaintiff’s injury consisted solely of a narrowing of the fifth lumbar invertebral space which indicated only the possibility of a disc injury. However, pain and related discomforts persisted, medical treatment continued and plaintiff’s physician (a specialist in traumatic and general surgery) now opines, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that plaintiff sustained a permanent injury to his lumbar spine which is causally related to the accident. In view of such assertion, and since merit in the action and reason for the delay have been satisfactorily shown, we believe it was an abuse of discretion to have denied the relief requested. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, [928]*928entered June 36, 1972 denying plaintiff’s motion to remove the action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court, to increase the ad damnum clause of his complaint and. for related relief, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and said motion granted, without costs and without disbursements. The claimed injuries arose when, on March 20, 1968, plaintiff was thrown from his motorcycle after it struck an unguarded hole. An action was commenced in Civil Court in April, 1969, predicated on the belief that plaintiff’s injury consisted solely of a narrowing of the fifth lumbar invertebral space which indicated only the possibility of a disc injury. However, pain and related discomforts persisted, medical treatment continued and plaintiff’s physician (a specialist in traumatic and general surgery) now opines, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that plaintiff sustained a permanent injury to his lumbar spine which is causally related to the accident. In view of such assertion, and since merit in the action and reason for the delay have been satisfactorily shown, we believe it was an abuse of discretion to have denied the relief requested. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 927, 352 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steiger-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1974.