Blaise v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blaise v. New York City Transit Authority

240 A.D.2d 688, 660 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7135

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

DecidedJune 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 688 (Blaise v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Blaise v. New York City Transit Authority, 240 A.D.2d 688, 660 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings [689]*689County (Moskowitz, J.), entered August 12, 1996, which, inter alia, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Malcolm Laney on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court should have afforded him time to conduct further discovery is not preserved for appellate review inasmuch as the plaintiff did not move for such relief before the trial court (see, Jenkins v Meredith Ave. Assocs., 238 AD2d 477).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions lack merit. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings [689]*689County (Moskowitz, J.), entered August 12, 1996, which, inter alia, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Malcolm Laney on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court should have afforded him time to conduct further discovery is not preserved for appellate review inasmuch as the plaintiff did not move for such relief before the trial court (see, Jenkins v Meredith Ave. Assocs., 238 AD2d 477).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions lack merit. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 688, 660 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blaise-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack