Toolis v. Naotasi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toolis v. Naotasi

240 A.D. 849

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 240 A.D. 849 (Toolis v. Naotasi) 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

Toolis v. Naotasi, 240 A.D. 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order removing action from Municipal Court to the Supreme Court affirmed, with ten doEars costs and disbursements. The [850]*850plaintiff made the motion for removal seasonably when it appeared that she had suffered damages in excess of the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. She must now amend her pleading in respect to damages. There is no new cause of action. She is now attempting to enforce the same claim because of specified conduct, and will be permitted to amend to increase the amount of damages claimed even though more than three years have elapsed since the cause of action arose. (Foster v. Central Nat. Bank, 183 N. Y. 379, 385; N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U. S. 340, 346; Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 id. 207.) Section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act affects procedure only and creates no new right of action. (Laird v. Carton, 196 N. Y. 169; Lazarus v. M. E. R. Co., 145 id. 581.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order removing action from Municipal Court to the Supreme Court affirmed, with ten doEars costs and disbursements. The [850]*850plaintiff made the motion for removal seasonably when it appeared that she had suffered damages in excess of the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. She must now amend her pleading in respect to damages. There is no new cause of action. She is now attempting to enforce the same claim because of specified conduct, and will be permitted to amend to increase the amount of damages claimed even though more than three years have elapsed since the cause of action arose. (Foster v. Central Nat. Bank, 183 N. Y. 379, 385; N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U. S. 340, 346; Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 id. 207.) Section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act affects procedure only and creates no new right of action. (Laird v. Carton, 196 N. Y. 169; Lazarus v. M. E. R. Co., 145 id. 581.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toolis-v-naotasi-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack