Naujokas v. H. Frank Carey High School, 2

• Decision Date: 23 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. 2,2
• Parties: George NAUJOKAS, an infant under the age of 14 years, individually, by his father and natural guardian George Naujokas, Plaintiff, v. The H. FRANK CAREY HIGH SCHOOL, and Central High School Districtof theTown of Hempstead, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 196

292 N.Y.S.2d 196

57 Misc.2d 175

George NAUJOKAS, an infant under the age of 14 years individually, by his father and natural guardian George Naujokas, Plaintiff, v. The H. FRANK CAREY HIGH SCHOOL, and Central High School District No. 2 of theTown of Hempstead, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Nassau County, Part VIII.

July 23, 1968.

Kelly, Callahan & Duffy, Mineola, for plaintiff; Malachy J. Duffy, Mineola, of counsel.

Patrick F. Adams, Mineola, for defendants; O'Hagan & Reilly, Mineola, by George Kelly, Mineola of counsel.

WACHTLER, Justice.

MEMORANDUM

In this personal injury action, the jury has awarded the infant plaintiff $250,000. for severe injuries sustained by him while attending a school in the defendant School District. The defendant contends that the verdict is excessive and asks for a reduction of the award or, in the alternative, for a new trial. In addition, it urges that the verdict cannot stand in the face of a verified complaint which demands only $50,000. in compensatory damages. The plaintiff, on the other hand, moves for leave to amend the complaint so that it will reflect the verdict of the jury. The issues thus raised will be considered in inverse order.

It is an established rule of law that a plaintiff may not recovery money damages in excess of the amount demanded in the complaint. There are a myriad of cases, both ancient and recent, to this effect. (Michalowski v. Ey, 7 N.Y.2d 71, 75, 195 N.Y.S.2d 633, 635, 163 N.E.2d 863, 865; Corning v. Corning, 6 N.Y. 96, 105; Barbato v. Vollmer, 273 App.Div. 169, 172, 76 N.Y.S.2d 528, 532; Rosenzweig v. Wecksler, 237 App.Div. 65, 67, 260 N.Y.S. 570, 571; Silbert v. Silbert, 22 A.D.2d 893, 255 N.Y.S.2d 272; Natale v. Pepsi-Cola Co., 7 A.D.2d 282, 182 N.Y.S.2d 404).

However, a question arises as to whether or not this rule for all time should be without exception. There was a time during the ancient practice when a plaintiff was required to correctly name his theory in pleading a form of action--a time when a great distinction was drawn as between the courts of law and equity. Indeed, there was a time when the form of the law commended the attention of the courts as profoundly as did the substance. The evolution of recent decisions and legislation has been away from rigid compliance with certain of these elements and toward the ideals of justice which allow a party to obtain the relief supported by the facts.

In the interest of obtaining justice, the State of New York enacted various sections of the CPLR including § 3017 which permits the court to '* * * grant any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded * * *.' Despite this seeming latitude which would appear to give the court the discretionary power to allow an award in excess of the ad damnum clause as 'relief * * * appropriate to the proof', recent decisions seem to continue the rule which holds to the contrary. (Garden Hill Estates, Inc. v. Bernstein, 24 A.D.2d 512, 261 N.Y.S.2d 648; Silbert v. Silbert, supra.) However, a contrary interpretation of § 3017 allowing for a verdict in excess of the ad damnum clause was found by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, in the case of Riggs, Ferris & Geer v. Lillibridge, 316 F.2d 60.

The matter might well end here were it not for two considerations which prompt the court to examine this question in some greater depth. The first is the total absence of prejudice to the defendant in the event that amendment of the complaint is permitted. The second is the fact that we are here concerned with the rights of an infant, to whom courts have ever owed a special fidelity and guardianship (Glogowski v. Rapson, 20 Misc.2d 96, 198 N.Y.S.2d 87; Chikara v. City of New York, 21 Misc.2d 446, 190 N.Y.S.2d 576).

The plaintiff's complaint, verified by his father as guardian ad litem when the infant was fourteen years of age, alleges serious personal injuries and prays for damages in the total sum of $50,000. Timely notice of claim was served on the defendant and the defendant has answered and defended against the action. The record of the trial, the medical testimony, the nature and permanency of plaintiff's injuries and the jury's verdict all combine to make it manifestly clear that the prayer for damages was undoubtedly and unreasonably low. All that could be done at the trial, however, was done, both by plaintiff's and defendants' counsel. The action was vigorously prosecuted and effectively defended. Upon what grounds, then, is the court to say that the infant plaintiff must be bound by the prayer of the complaint.

If the defendant was able to show prejudice, that would be a sufficient ground. At a minimum, defendant would be entitled to his request for a new trial. But there is no prejudice and the defendant has been unable to establish the contrary. A new trial would be an exercise in futility; perhaps worse, it would seriously prejudice the plaintiff who has already established the defendant's liability.

If the ad damnum clause had asked for greater damages--or if a new trial were now granted, there would be nothing that the defendant could now do that it has not already done. In short, whether the damages demanded by the complaint were $50,000. or $250,000., the trial would, in fact, have progressed and terminated precisely as it did. Why, then, should the infant plaintiff suffer prejudice at the hands of his guardian ad litem and counsel when prejudice for all parties can be effectively avoided?

It is urged that the ad damnum clause apprises a defendant of the outer limits of liability and thus affords him the opportunity to make certain critical decisions. We are not told what those decisions are, but we may presume two; he must decide whether to appear or whether to default and, if liability alleged exceeds insurance coverage afforded, he must decide whether to retain counsel to protect him against the potential of excess liability. Neither of these situations is present here. If the defendant had defaulted, there would, of course, have been no trial and the defendant's liability would then clearly be limited by the demand made in the complaint (CPLR Sec. 3215). Having appeared, however, this alleged ground of prejudice disappears entirely, for the defendant has now undertaken to defend the case on its merits and the trial will proceed in the identical manner whatever the money demand of the complaint may be. As to the second point, it is sufficient to note that no question of protection against excess liability is presented in this case.

In a supplemental affidavit, the defendant raises the point that the notice of claim filed with the defendant School District was limited to the same amount as stated in the ad damnum clause. The reasoning set forth herein is also applicable in answering this defect in procedure. The purpose of Section 50-e of the General Municipal Law is to make the School Board cognizant of the nature of the claim (Teresta v. City of New York, 304 N.Y. 440, 108 N.E.2d 397; Montana v. Inc. Village of Lynbrook, 23 A.D.2d 585, 256 N.Y.S.2d 651).

The cases are legion to the effect that the rights of an infant cannot be lost through the negligence, mistake or inadvertence of the infant's guardian ad litem or his attorney (Honadle v. Stafford, 265 N.Y. 354, 193 N.E. 172; Wannemacher v. Tynan, Sup., 144 N.Y.S.2d 2; Glogowski v. Rapson, 20 Misc.2d 96, 198 N.Y.S.2d 87; Chikara v. City of New York, 21 Misc.2d 446, 190 N.Y.S.2d 576). In the Honadle case, the Court of Appeals made it clear that 'Too much care cannot be exercised by trial judges to see that the infant wards of the court are protected as far as possible' (265 N.Y. at 357, 193 N.E. at 174). Indeed, it is clear that an attorney for an infant plaintiff has no greater authority to compromise, settle or discharge an infant's cause of action than does the infant's guardian ad litem (Greenburg v. New York C. & H.R.R.R. Co., 210 N.Y. 505, 104 N.E. 931) and that both are without power to act absent the court's approval and consent (CPLR § 1207, R. 1208). The...