Legal Opinion

Morris v. Perlman

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCuff, J.

The actions are for personal injury. Plaintiffs’ attorney contends that plaintiff erred in not suing for a larger sum of money because the injuries are serious and asks to change the forum under section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act. The amended bill of particulars claims permanent injuries to the head and nerves, and the doctor’s affidavit, to a great degree, substantiates this claim. Plaintiff’s attorney believes that, if successful, a verdict in excess of the City Court limitation will be justified. He was not the attorney who made the mistake of bringing the cases in the City Court. In…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Krohe v. GoldmanCity of New York Municipal Court · 1938
  2. Frawley v. StradtmannNew York Supreme Court · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API