Betke v. Archwood Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Betke v. Archwood Estates, Inc.

266 A.D.2d 328, 698 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11521

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated September 9, 1998, as denied his motion for a special trial preference and denied his amended motion for, inter alia, the same relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff’s motion for a special trial preference was properly denied since he failed to demonstrate that the interests of justice would be served by an early trial (see, CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; Thompson v City of New York, 140 AD2d 232, 233). The plaintiff proffered insufficient proof of an injury that would worsen over time, that he was unable to work, was indigent, or had an obligation as a single parent to support a dependent (see, Patterson v Anderson Ave. Assocs., 242 AD2d 430; Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assocs., 213 AD2d 151; Zangiacomi v Hood, 193 AD2d 188, 195; Thompson v City of New York, supra).

The court properly denied the relief sought in the plaintiffs amended motion since the amended motion was not served [329] with supporting affidavits or documents (see, CPLR 2214 [b]; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac 2214.02). Moreover, the plaintiff offered no excuse for the failure to timely submit the supporting affidavit and documents (see, Romeo v Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 AD2d 688, 690).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are not properly before us since they concern issues that were not decided in the order appealed from. Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Feuerstein and Smith, 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 plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated September 9, 1998, as denied his motion for a special trial preference and denied his amended motion for, inter alia, the same relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff’s motion for a special trial preference was properly denied since he failed to demonstrate that the interests of justice would be served by an early trial (see, CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; Thompson v City of New York, 140 AD2d 232, 233). The plaintiff proffered insufficient proof of an injury that would worsen over time, that he was unable to work, was indigent, or had an obligation as a single parent to support a dependent (see, Patterson v Anderson Ave. Assocs., 242 AD2d 430; Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assocs., 213 AD2d 151; Zangiacomi v Hood, 193 AD2d 188, 195; Thompson v City of New York, supra).

The court properly denied the relief sought in the plaintiffs amended motion since the amended motion was not served [329] with supporting affidavits or documents (see, CPLR 2214 [b]; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac 2214.02). Moreover, the plaintiff offered no excuse for the failure to timely submit the supporting affidavit and documents (see, Romeo v Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 AD2d 688, 690).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are not properly before us since they concern issues that were not decided in the order appealed from. Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Betke v. Archwood Estates, Inc., 266 A.D.2d 328, 698 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

266 A.D.2d 328 (Betke v. Archwood Estates, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related