From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rutkowski v. Geist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 1983
96 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

August 22, 1983


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated January 3, 1983, which denied their motion to amend their complaint so as to increase the ad damnum clause. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiffs' time to serve an amended complaint containing the increased ad damnum clause is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Defendant is granted leave to conduct a further physical examination of plaintiff Patricia Rutkowski, if he be so advised, at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. Since there was no showing of prejudice to the defendant indicating that he had been hindered in preparing his defense or prevented from taking some measure in support of his 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 N.Y.2d 18; Esposito v Time Motor Sales, 88 A.D.2d 902; Maddox v City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 535; see, also, Colon v Fong, 90 A.D.2d 817). Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rutkowski v. Geist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 1983
96 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Rutkowski v. Geist

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA RUTKOWSKI et al., Appellants, v. EDWARD GEIST, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 22, 1983

Citations

96 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Poitevien v. Montefusco

As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Under all the circumstances of this case, we…

Fulciniti v. European American Bank

The defendants, European American Bank and Royal Prudential Industries, Inc., however, shall be entitled to…