Walter v. Louise Bauer
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
— Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Under the circumstances presented here, Special Term should have granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the ad damnum clause. “[I]n the absence of prejudice to the defendant, a motion to amend the ad damnum clause, whether made before or after trial, should generally be granted” (Loomis u Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23; see, also, Osowicki v Engerí, 85 AD2d 778; Quirk v Lawler, 85 AD2d 597). Defendants have not claimed prejudice and prejudice does not result merely…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Construction Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Sharapata v. Town of IslipAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Probst v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Taylor v. TaylorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Osowicki v. EngertAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Wilhelm Winter Cynthia Zheng v. G.P. Putnam's SonsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Daniel v. Dow Jones & Co.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1987
- Howard v. Poseidon Pools, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Howard v. Poseidon Pools, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1986
- Beasock v. Dioguardi Enterprises, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1985
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.