Banushi v. Lambrakos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banushi v. Lambrakos

305 A.D.2d 524, 759 N.Y.S.2d 345

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

DecidedMay 19, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 524 (Banushi v. Lambrakos) 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

Banushi v. Lambrakos, 305 A.D.2d 524, 759 N.Y.S.2d 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), entered April 12, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, they were not prejudiced by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow them to proceed pro se. “A litigant appearing pro se acquires no greater right than any other litigant and such appearance may not be used to deprive defendants of the same rights enjoyed by other defendants” (Roundtree v Singh, 143 AD2d 995, 996 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The plaintiffs appeared pro se at the trial at their own peril.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Altman, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Rivera, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), entered April 12, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, they were not prejudiced by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow them to proceed pro se. “A litigant appearing pro se acquires no greater right than any other litigant and such appearance may not be used to deprive defendants of the same rights enjoyed by other defendants” (Roundtree v Singh, 143 AD2d 995, 996 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The plaintiffs appeared pro se at the trial at their own peril.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Altman, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 524, 759 N.Y.S.2d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banushi-v-lambrakos-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack