From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mykulak v. New York Journal American

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 1974
44 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Summary

In Matter of Emilio M. (44 A.D.2d 791), we adopted a per se rule and held that failure to follow the statute, then Family Court Act § 724, by questioning the accused in a room other than a "designated facility" mandated suppression of the inculpatory statement.

Summary of this case from Matter of Luis

Opinion

May 7, 1974


Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 29, 1973, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal.

Concur — McGivern, P.J., Murphy and Lane, JJ.; Markewich and Kupferman, JJ., concur in the following memorandum by Markewich, J.: I concur in the result of affirmance, but here again we find an instance of increase of ad damnum granted by the court at the moment of trial, not upon the usually required papers (see, e.g., Koupash v. Grand Union Co., 34 A.D.2d 695), but on oral application based solely upon service of a notice of intention to move to amend at trial. Indeed, when the jury returned a verdict for $1,000 more than the amount of the new ad damnum, the Trial Justice, promptly and sua sponte, further increased the ad damnum accordingly. Trial counsel astutely consented to reduction of the verdict by $1,000. The action of the court comes sufficiently close to abuse of discretion to justify calling attention to a practice which we have condemned again and again. (See Koi v. P.S. M. Catering Corp., 15 A.D.2d 775; Galarza v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 34 A.D.2d 907; Osborne v. Miller, 38 A.D.2d 298; and most recently Coleman v. New York City Tr. Auth., 44 A.D.2d 673.)


Summaries of

Mykulak v. New York Journal American

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 1974
44 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

In Matter of Emilio M. (44 A.D.2d 791), we adopted a per se rule and held that failure to follow the statute, then Family Court Act § 724, by questioning the accused in a room other than a "designated facility" mandated suppression of the inculpatory statement.

Summary of this case from Matter of Luis

In Matter of Emilio M. (44 A.D.2d 791), we adopted a per se rule and held that failure to follow the statute, then Family Court Act § 724, by questioning the accused in a room other than a "designated facility", mandated suppression of the inculpatory statement.

Summary of this case from Matter of Luis

In Mykulak v New York Journal Amer. (44 A.D.2d 791) a motion to amend the ad damnum clause, based solely upon the service of a notice of intention to so move at the trial, was granted.

Summary of this case from Harris v. Pullman's Bar and Grill, Inc.
Case details for

Mykulak v. New York Journal American

Case Details

Full title:JOHANNA MYKULAK, Respondent, v. NEW YORK JOURNAL AMERICAN, a Division of…

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

Date published: May 7, 1974

Citations

44 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Citing Cases

Matter of Robert F

(Matter of Aaron D., supra, p 185.) A similar conclusion was reached by the Appellate Division in Matter of…

Matter of Miranda v. City of New York

The proposed bill of particulars served with the motion to reargue provides adequate notice of the injuries…