Case ID: ad2d_8/html/0591-10.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Martha S. Costanza et al., Petitioners-Respondents, against Harry Schneider, Appellant.
   Order dated October 30, 1958 unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. We do not think that section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act was intended to apply to the situation here involved. Although both causes of action arise from a loss of furs, there is no relation between the two. Section 110-a provides for removal to a higher court where, after an action has been commenced in a court of limited jurisdiction, it develops that the damages demanded, based upon the cause there pleaded, are inadequate. That is not the case here, where it is sought to increase the amount o£ damages by adding another separate and unrelated cause of action. Moreover, in view of the nature of the claims asserted, we think that trying them together might seriously prejudice a jury. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Babin, Valente, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.