Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18 (1981)
A court may grant a plaintiff’s motion to increase the amount of relief requested in the ad damnum clause of the complaint, even after the verdict, if the defendant is not prejudiced.
Summary
Loomis sued Civetta Corinno Construction Corp. for trespass, claiming $15,000 in damages. After summary judgment was granted to Loomis, a hearing was held to assess damages where evidence suggested damages exceeded the initial $15,000. Loomis moved to amend the ad damnum clause to conform to the proof. The trial court awarded $26,118. The Appellate Division reduced the award to $15,000, holding that post-verdict motions to amend the ad damnum clause are prohibited. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that amendments to the ad damnum clause are permissible, even post-verdict, absent prejudice to the defendant, aligning with the CPLR’s liberal pleading amendment policy.
Facts
Loomis owned a townhouse in Manhattan. Civetta Corinno Construction Corporation trespassed on Loomis’s property during the construction of a nearby building, removing her patio, a brick wall, and shrubbery in 1976. Loomis filed a lawsuit alleging trespass, estimating damages at $15,000 in the ad damnum clause. Before the damages hearing in 1980, Loomis’s attorneys indicated the damages were conservatively estimated at $23,000. Civetta’s expert examined the property and received information about the claimed damages before the hearing.
Procedural History
The trial court granted Loomis summary judgment on the trespass cause of action. At the damages assessment hearing, Loomis moved to amend the ad damnum clause, which was initially denied but later seemingly granted when the court awarded $26,118. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reducing it to the original $15,000 claim, based on the prohibition of post-verdict ad damnum amendments. Loomis appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a plaintiff can amend the ad damnum clause of a complaint, after a verdict, to increase the amount of damages sought, where the evidence presented at trial supports the higher amount.
Holding
Yes, because CPLR 3017(a) and 3025(c) grant the court discretionary power to permit amendments to pleadings, including the ad damnum clause, to conform to the evidence presented at trial, provided that the defendant is not prejudiced. “[T]he court may grant any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded, imposing such terms as may be just.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the CPLR aims to liberalize pleading practices. CPLR 3017(a) allows courts to grant relief appropriate to the proof, whether or not demanded in the pleadings. CPLR 3025(c) permits amendments to pleadings before or after judgment to conform to the evidence. The court emphasized that motions to conform pleadings to evidence are within the court’s discretion, as stated in Murray v. City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 405 (1977). The court found no prejudice to Civetta. Civetta was informed before the hearing that Loomis’s damages exceeded the initial claim and Civetta’s expert inspected the property. Prejudice requires a showing that the defendant was hindered in preparing the case or prevented from taking measures to support their position. The court dismissed the argument that a smaller ad damnum clause might lull the defendant into a false sense of security. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for a review of the facts.