Case Name: Mary Toolis, Respondent, v. Rosario R. Naotasi, Defendant, and Yellow Taxi Corporation, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1933-10
Citations: 240 A.D. 849
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Toolis, Respondent, v. Rosario R. Naotasi, Defendant, and Yellow Taxi Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 240
Pages: 849–850

Head Matter:
Mary Toolis, Respondent, v. Rosario R. Naotasi, Defendant, and Yellow Taxi Corporation, Appellant.

Opinion:
Order removing action from Municipal Court to the Supreme Court affirmed, with ten doEars costs and disbursements. The plaintiff made the motion for removal seasonably when it appeared that she had suffered damages in excess of the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. She must now amend her pleading in respect to damages. There is no new cause of action. She is now attempting to enforce the same claim because of specified conduct, and will be permitted to amend to increase the amount of damages claimed even though more than three years have elapsed since the cause of action arose. (Foster v. Central Nat. Bank, 183 N. Y. 379, 385; N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U. S. 340, 346; Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 id. 207.) Section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act affects procedure only and creates no new right of action. (Laird v. Carton, 196 N. Y. 169; Lazarus v. M. E. R. Co., 145 id. 581.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.