Toolis v. Naotasi
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order removing action from Municipal Court to the Supreme Court affirmed, with ten doEars costs and disbursements. The *850plaintiff made the motion for removal seasonably when it appeared that she had suffered damages in excess of the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. She must now amend her pleading in respect to damages. There is no new cause of action. She is now attempting to enforce the same claim because of specified conduct, and will be permitted to amend to increase the amount of damages claimed even though more than three years have elapsed since the cause of action arose. (Foster v.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. KinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Laird v. . CartonNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Foster v. Central National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
3Cited by3 opinions
- Helfgott v. TannenNew York Supreme Court · 1955
- In re the Arbitration between Davis, Brody & Wisniewski & Temple Emanu-el of East MeadowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1967
- Birkholz v. WilgusNew York Supreme Court · 1961