Arroyo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arroyo v. City of New York

185 A.D.2d 829

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 10, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 829 (Arroyo v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arroyo v. City of New York, 185 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), entered June 12, 1990, which permitted the defendants to withdraw their jury demand on the eve of trial and barred the plaintiffs from filing a jury demand on the eve of trial.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from did not decide a motion made on notice, and hence, is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; see, Cohalan v Johnson Elec. Constr. Corp., 105 AD2d 770). The appellants perfected the appeal without leave to appeal (see, Roberts v Modica, 102 AD2d 886). In light of this disposition, we do not pass on the merits of the arguments raised by the appellants. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), entered June 12, 1990, which permitted the defendants to withdraw their jury demand on the eve of trial and barred the plaintiffs from filing a jury demand on the eve of trial.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from did not decide a motion made on notice, and hence, is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; see, Cohalan v Johnson Elec. Constr. Corp., 105 AD2d 770). The appellants perfected the appeal without leave to appeal (see, Roberts v Modica, 102 AD2d 886). In light of this disposition, we do not pass on the merits of the arguments raised by the appellants. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arroyo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack