Suarez v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 22 January 1991 |
| Citation | 564 N.Y.S.2d 393,169 A.D.2d 540 |
| Parties | Edwin SUAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Police Officer Robert Linardo, Police Officer "John Doe", Police Officer "Robert Roe", these last names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, ROSS, ELLERIN and RUBIN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 2, 1990, denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause from $500,000 to $10,000,000, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion granted.
On November 4, 1978, the 38-year-old plaintiff was allegedly assaulted, without provocation, by several New York City police officers in an East Harlem apartment. At the time, he owned a 50% interest in a neighborhood liquor store, and was a self-employed housing consultant for PAA Management. Plaintiff claims a laceration to the left frontal region of his head, which required eleven sutures to close and entailed a four-day hospitalization at Metropolitan Hospital and has resulted in permanent scarring and loss of sensation. Plaintiff was subsequently confined to the intensive-care unit of St. Barnabas Hospital for approximately nine days due to blackouts and was confined there for about a month, although it is not at all clear that this confinement was a direct result of the earlier alleged assault. In early 1980 plaintiff commenced this action seeking $500,000 in damages. A note of issue and statement of readiness were filed in April or May of 1988. A trial was scheduled for June 20, 1990.
By notice of motion dated April 27, 1990, plaintiff moved to increase the ad damnum to $10,000,000. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of a deteriorating mental condition due to the 1978 incident he was forced in 1981 to sell his 50% interest in the liquor business, even though he had satisfied a $50,000 obligation incurred in launching the business, and that he had to resign from a job he had taken after the incident as a special legislative assistant to a Congressman. Plaintiff claims to have suffered a series of traumatic disturbances as a result of the incident. He supported his application with a medical report and affidavit from Dr. Robert Karlan, who, after examining plaintiff again on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norwood v. City of New York
...p. 356)" (Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, supra, 60 N.Y.2d at 959, 471 N.Y.S.2d 55, 459 N.E.2d 164; Suarez v. City of New York, 169 A.D.2d 540, 564 N.Y.S.2d 393; Detrinca v. De Fillippo, 165 A.D.2d 505, 508, 568 N.Y.S.2d 586). In determining whether to grant a motion to amend an an......
-
Carmichael v. Hoover Inst. on War, Revolution and Peace
... ... Stanford University, Defendants-Appellants ... Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, ... First Department ... January 22, 1991 ... Order, Supreme ... ...