Wesley v. Bingel

55 A.D.2d 1010, 391 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10338
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 14, 1977·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries as well as the fact that he under[1011] went two operations on his back were fully known by defendants long before plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint by increasing the ad damnum clause. Under these circumstances and absent prejudice to defendants the grant of such leave was proper. (Barner v Shook, 51 AD2d 855.) Although plaintiff did not submit medical affidavits in support of his motion, he did include letters from the attending physicians which fulfilled the same purpose. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court — ad damnum clause.) Present — Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Goldman, JJ.

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

Wesley v. Bingel, 55 A.D.2d 1010, 391 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

55 A.D.2d 1010 (Wesley v. Bingel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rosenberg v. New York University Hospital
128 Misc. 2d 90 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
Drechsel v. Loblaw, Inc.
64 A.D.2d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Smart v. Wozniak
58 A.D.2d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)