Geisler v. Rutkowski
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHinkle y, J.
Plaintiffs’ complaints in negligence have omitted from the ad damnum clauses the specific sums of money to which they suppose themselves entitled. This is a radical change from the form of pleading which has been almost universally adopted and approved for many years. The plaintiffs simply demand judgment for “ such sums of money as the facts, evidence and circumstances will warrant and justify.” Defendants move to require the plaintiffs to make their complaints more definite and certain by including in the prayers for relief specific sums for damages.
*285The most cogent and appealing reason has…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bell v. . MerrifieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Murtha v. . CurleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- O'Brien v. . FitzgeraldNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Lester v. SeilliereAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mosca v. PenskyNew York Supreme Court · 1973
- Schindler v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1980