Vincent Esposito v. Time Motor Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vincent Esposito v. Time Motor Sales, Inc.

88 A.D.2d 902, 450 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17229

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

DecidedJune 1, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 902 (Vincent Esposito v. Time Motor Sales, Inc.) 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

Vincent Esposito v. Time Motor Sales, Inc., 88 A.D.2d 902, 450 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated November 20, 1981, which denied their motion to amend their complaint so as to increase the ad damnum clause. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiffs’ time to serve an amended complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Since there was no showing of prejudice to defendants indicating that they had been hindered in preparing their case or prevented from taking some measure in support of their position, the motion to amend the complaint so as to increase the ad damnum clause should have been granted (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Boyers, 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., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated November 20, 1981, which denied their motion to amend their complaint so as to increase the ad damnum clause. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiffs’ time to serve an amended complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Since there was no showing of prejudice to defendants indicating that they had been hindered in preparing their case or prevented from taking some measure in support of their position, the motion to amend the complaint so as to increase the ad damnum clause should have been granted (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 902, 450 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincent-esposito-v-time-motor-sales-inc-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack