New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
The respondent in the case is James Davis. The respondent is represented by Jacobs, Jacobs & Giulini, Brooklyn, and Michael R. Scolnick. The appellant in the case is Bamboo 234 Restaurant, Inc. The appellant is represented by Henry Wolfman, from New York City and by Herbert Minster from Brooklyn.
The case is being held in the Second Division of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division. The judges in the case are Rabin, P.J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello, and Shapiro, JJ.
Court Memorandum
According to a New York Injury Lawyer, this is a proceeding that is attempting to remove a personal injury lawsuit from a Civil Court in the City of New York and move it to the Supreme Court. The proceeding wish to leave the complaint in the personal injury case and the appeal is ordered by the Supreme Court. The order is dated the 6th of October, 1970 and was granted by the Kings County Supreme Court.
In so far as being appealed from, the order is reversed with $10 in costs and disbursements and the application is denied. The application is denied without prejudice to the application made in the Civil Court of the City of New York, located in Kings County for the complaint to be amended.
Original Case
The original case was instituted by the plaintiff in December of 1966. The plaintiff began the case in the Kings County Civil Court. A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said that the oral complaint from the plaintiff declares the following cause of action; Seeking a sum of $10,000 for the personal injuries and damages (premises liability) that were received on October 30, 1966 while I was on the premises of the defendant. The premise in question is located at 1011 Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. I was invited there as a business invite issued from the defendant.
The plaintiff goes on to claim that the defendant was negligent in the responsibility of ownership, maintenance, control, and operation of the premises in question. The plaintiff states he is free of any contributory negligence.
Current Case
The order that is being appealed is the order that granted the plaintiff the motion to remove his case from the Civil Court and move the case to the Supreme Court. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said the order also permitted the plaintiff to amend his complaint and set forth another cause of action in an attempt to recover punitive damages for the injury as well as compensatory damages.
Case Outcome
The special term of the motion that seeks to increase the ad damnum to $50,000 is denied. The reasoning for this is that the plaintiff can be adequately compensated for his actual damages with an amount that is within the limits of the jurisdiction.
In this court’s opinion, the transfer of the plaintiffs case from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court was an abuse of discretion as it allowed the plaintiff the ability to allege a new cause of action under the General Obligations Law, sections 11 through 101. This is also in view of the fact that the motion to move the case did not occur until almost four years after the fact. The plaintiff will be allowed to move through the Civil Court to amend his complaint under the same General Obligations Law.
If you find yourself in a legal situation, Stephen Bilkis & Associates is here to help you determine the type of legal action that you should consider. Our teams of lawyers are experts in a variety of fields and will be able to work with you no matter what type of circumstance that you may be in. Our offices are conveniently located throughout the NY metropolitan area. You may call us for a free consultation.