Bilotti v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bilotti v. City of New York

199 A.D.2d 297, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1003

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 297 (Bilotti 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

Bilotti v. City of New York, 199 A.D.2d 297, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1003 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.) dated December 3, 1991, which denied their motion for an order striking the case from the trial calendar and directing further discovery, including depositions of nonparty witnesses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its dis[298]*298cretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the action from the trial calendar. The motion was made more than three years after the plaintiffs had filed a note of issue and a certificate of readiness, and more than 9 Vi years after they had commenced this action. Thus, the record demonstrates that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to conduct discovery (see, Tilden Fin. Corp. v Muffoletto, 161 AD2d 583).

Further, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to conduct additional pretrial proceedings (see, Blankenship v Schwartz, 127 AD2d 624). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.) dated December 3, 1991, which denied their motion for an order striking the case from the trial calendar and directing further discovery, including depositions of nonparty witnesses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its dis[298]*298cretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the action from the trial calendar. The motion was made more than three years after the plaintiffs had filed a note of issue and a certificate of readiness, and more than 9 Vi years after they had commenced this action. Thus, the record demonstrates that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to conduct discovery (see, Tilden Fin. Corp. v Muffoletto, 161 AD2d 583).

Further, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to conduct additional pretrial proceedings (see, Blankenship v Schwartz, 127 AD2d 624). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 297, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bilotti-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack