Opinion
December 8, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not err or abuse its discretion in retransferring the action back to the Civil Court, pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), after first transferring the action to itself so that it could increase the ad damnum clause (see, Huston v. Rao, 74 A.D.2d 127). It is not at all illogical that the Supreme Court might conclude that the plaintiff's damages will ultimately be more than the $25,000 originally sought but less than the $40,888.25 now sought in the increased ad damnum clause. Nor does it appear that the issues are so complex as to warrant a trial in the Supreme Court, with its attendant delays. Finally, the CPLR 325 (d) retransfer does not negate the other relief granted. The plaintiff's recovery, if any, will now be subject to the monetary jurisdiction of the transferor Supreme Court, up to a ceiling of the amount sought in the increased ad damnum clause. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.