Vargas v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vargas v. Colon

74 A.D.2d 911, 425 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10715

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 911 (Vargas v. Colon) 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

Vargas v. Colon, 74 A.D.2d 911, 425 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 1, 1979, which denied their motion, inter alia, to remove their action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court. Order affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to respondent Carrillo, and without prejudice to the plaintiffs to renew their motion upon proper papers within 30 days of service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Plaintiffs seek removal of their negligence action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court based primarily upon a re-evaluation of their injuries. We agree with Special Term that there has been an insufficient showing that the injuries, as originally reported, are so severe that the plaintiffs may not be adequately compensated within the monetary jurisdiction of the Civil Court. We note that although the more detailed medical report dated April 26, 1979 is suggestive of more serious and disabling injuries which might justify [912]*912removal, this report does not adequately set forth a causal connection between these injuries and the underlying accident (cf. Ditimis v Vlachos, 43 AD2d 848). Plaintiffs should, however, be allowed the opportunity of curing such defect. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Rabin, 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, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 1, 1979, which denied their motion, inter alia, to remove their action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court. Order affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to respondent Carrillo, and without prejudice to the plaintiffs to renew their motion upon proper papers within 30 days of service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Plaintiffs seek removal of their negligence action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court based primarily upon a re-evaluation of their injuries. We agree with Special Term that there has been an insufficient showing that the injuries, as originally reported, are so severe that the plaintiffs may not be adequately compensated within the monetary jurisdiction of the Civil Court. We note that although the more detailed medical report dated April 26, 1979 is suggestive of more serious and disabling injuries which might justify [912]*912removal, this report does not adequately set forth a causal connection between these injuries and the underlying accident (cf. Ditimis v Vlachos, 43 AD2d 848). Plaintiffs should, however, be allowed the opportunity of curing such defect. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 911, 425 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vargas-v-colon-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack