Ballinger v. Stelle Architects, PLLC

2019 NY Slip Op 2668

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: April 10, 2019
• Docket: Index No. 17642/06
• Status: Published

Opinion

Ballinger v Stelle Architects, PLLC (2019 NY Slip Op 02668)

Ballinger v Stelle Architects, PLLC

2019 NY Slip Op 02668

Decided on April 10, 2019

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 10, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
HECTOR D. LASALLE
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2017-03166
(Index No. 17642/06)

[*1]Alan Ballinger, et al., appellants,

v

Stelle Architects, PLLC, respondent.

Deborah A. Schwartz PLLC, New York, NY, for appellants.

L'Abbate, Balkin, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, NY (Kristiana C. Zuccarini and Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP [Daniel C. Ross], of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph C. Pastoressa, J.), dated January 3, 2017. The order denied their motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4102(e) for leave to serve and file a late jury demand.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision of whether to relieve a party from a failure to serve a timely request for a jury trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Cicco v Durolek, 147 AD3d 1486, 1487; Buddle v Buddle, 62 AD3d 1192, 1192; Roosa v Roosa, 248 AD2d 858, 858; Calabro v Calabro, 133 AD2d 604, 604). Here, the plaintiffs moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4102(e) for leave to serve and file a late jury demand more than one year after the defendant served a note of issue which did not request a jury trial. In the absence of any evidence in this record to excuse this inordinate delay, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion (see Lackowitz v City of Yonkers, 29 AD3d 744, 744; Med Part v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 260, 261; Amitrano v Notaro, 10 AD3d 667, 668; Fertik v Fertik, 264 AD2d 463, 464; L.T.B. Constr. Co. v Port of Oswego Auth., 154 AD2d 903).

MASTRO, J.P., DUFFY, LASALLE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court