Cangialosi v. Mottoros

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cangialosi v. Mottoros

251 A.D.2d 615, 675 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7939

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 29, 1998·Published

Opinion

—In nine related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, which have been joined for trial, Vincent Cangialosi, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated September 8, 1997, which denied his motion to restore the actions to the trial calendar.

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

The motion to restore the actions to the trial calendar was properly denied upon the ground that the actions are stayed by operation of the voluntary bankruptcy petition filed by Connecticut Limousine, Inc., one of the defendants in Action No. 6 (see, 11 USC § 362 [a] [1]; Klein v Rauschman, 67 AD2d 902). In light of our determination, we need not address the appellant’s contention that this action is not governed by CPLR 3404. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In nine related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, which have been joined for trial, Vincent Cangialosi, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated September 8, 1997, which denied his motion to restore the actions to the trial calendar.

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

The motion to restore the actions to the trial calendar was properly denied upon the ground that the actions are stayed by operation of the voluntary bankruptcy petition filed by Connecticut Limousine, Inc., one of the defendants in Action No. 6 (see, 11 USC § 362 [a] [1]; Klein v Rauschman, 67 AD2d 902). In light of our determination, we need not address the appellant’s contention that this action is not governed by CPLR 3404. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cangialosi v. Mottoros, 251 A.D.2d 615, 675 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 615 (Cangialosi v. Mottoros) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related