From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maddox v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1982
90 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

October 25, 1982


In consolidated actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), entered December 21, 1981, which denied their motion to increase the ad damnum clause from $1.5 million to $10 million in the first cause of action of Action No. 1 and in Action No. 3. Order reversed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly by respondents, and motion granted. Respondents are granted leave to conduct further physical examinations of plaintiff Elliot Maddox, if they be so advised, upon written notices of not less than 10 days. Elliot Maddox (hereafter plaintiff) injured his knee while playing professional baseball in Shea Stadium in June, 1975 and brought actions in 1976 and 1977 against various parties. His bill of particulars specified that the injury made his knee "subject to osteoarthritic changes" and prevented him from playing on a full-time basis. In late 1981 plaintiff moved to increase the ad damnum clauses in question from $1.5 million to $10 million because he had recently developed signs of arthritis in his knee and his worsening condition had effectively put a complete end to his athletic career. A physician's affirmation supported his contentions (see Germinario v. Seatrain Lines, 81 A.D.2d 540). No prejudice to the respondents was suggested other than the mere increase in their liability exposure and the need for further investigation by the municipal respondent because its prior investigation had been proportioned in an unspecified way to the original ad damnum amount. Since there was no showing of prejudice to respondents indicating that they had been hindered in preparing their case or prevented from taking some measure in support of their position, the motion to amend the complaints so as to increase the ad damnum clauses in question should have been granted (see Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18). Damiani, J.P., O'Connor, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Maddox v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1982
90 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Maddox v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ELLIOT MADDOX et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 25, 1982

Citations

90 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Texaco Inc. v. Synergy Group Inc.

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to have granted leave to the…

Rutkowski v. Geist

Defendant is granted leave to conduct a further physical examination of plaintiff Patricia Rutkowski, if he…