Farinacci v. Powell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farinacci v. Powell

74 A.D.3d 561, 902 N.Y.S.2d 349

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

DecidedJune 15, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.3d 561 (Farinacci v. Powell) 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

Farinacci v. Powell, 74 A.D.3d 561, 902 N.Y.S.2d 349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered June 17, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries and wrongful death arising out of a collision involving a vehicle operated by defendant Powell and owned by defendant Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 2201 for a stay of proceedings pending Powell’s appeal of his criminal conviction of, inter alia, vehicular manslaughter and driving while intoxicated, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants do not argue that Powell’s pending appeal could result in a new trial, and otherwise fail to show how Powell’s testimony in this civil action could adversely affect him in any future criminal proceedings (see CPL 1.20 [16] [c] [“criminal action . . . terminates with the imposition of sentence or some other final disposition in a criminal court”]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered June 17, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries and wrongful death arising out of a collision involving a vehicle operated by defendant Powell and owned by defendant Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 2201 for a stay of proceedings pending Powell’s appeal of his criminal conviction of, inter alia, vehicular manslaughter and driving while intoxicated, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants do not argue that Powell’s pending appeal could result in a new trial, and otherwise fail to show how Powell’s testimony in this civil action could adversely affect him in any future criminal proceedings (see CPL 1.20 [16] [c] [“criminal action . . . terminates with the imposition of sentence or some other final disposition in a criminal court”]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 561, 902 N.Y.S.2d 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farinacci-v-powell-nyappdiv-2010.