Suk Hay Mui v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suk Hay Mui v. Miller

226 A.D.2d 182, 641 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3742

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

DecidedApril 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 182 (Suk Hay Mui v. Miller) 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

Suk Hay Mui v. Miller, 226 A.D.2d 182, 641 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered October 18, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the Supreme Court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The CPLR 325 (d) transfer was proper given the indication that plaintiff’s damages may be less than Civil Court’s jurisdictional limit, namely, the settlement of plaintiff’s children’s claims for $2,250 each and the absence of any evidence that plaintiffs injuries were more severe. In any event, CPLR 325 (d) provides that "[i]f the action is so removed, then the verdict or judgment shall be subject to the limitation of monetary jurisdiction of the court in which the action was originally commenced”. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered October 18, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the Supreme Court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The CPLR 325 (d) transfer was proper given the indication that plaintiff’s damages may be less than Civil Court’s jurisdictional limit, namely, the settlement of plaintiff’s children’s claims for $2,250 each and the absence of any evidence that plaintiffs injuries were more severe. In any event, CPLR 325 (d) provides that "[i]f the action is so removed, then the verdict or judgment shall be subject to the limitation of monetary jurisdiction of the court in which the action was originally commenced”. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 182, 641 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suk-hay-mui-v-miller-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack