Frank v. Gessel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frank v. Gessel

108 A.D.2d 896, 485 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43227

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 1985·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Charles Gessel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Gagliardi, J.), entered September 14, 1984, which denied his motion for leave to serve a jury demand nunc pro tunc and to renew his prior cross motion to transfer the action from the Nonjury Calendar to the Jury Calendar.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Appellant’s motion was in reality a motion to reargue since no new matter was presented which was unavailable to him in connection with his prior cross motion, which was denied (see, Galaxy Export v Bedford Textile Prods., 89 ÁD2d 576; Erlich v Erlich, 80 AD2d 882). Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. In any event, were we to reach the merits we would hold that the denial of the application to transfer the case to the Jury Calendar was not an abuse of discretion. Titone, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Charles Gessel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Gagliardi, J.), entered September 14, 1984, which denied his motion for leave to serve a jury demand nunc pro tunc and to renew his prior cross motion to transfer the action from the Nonjury Calendar to the Jury Calendar.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Appellant’s motion was in reality a motion to reargue since no new matter was presented which was unavailable to him in connection with his prior cross motion, which was denied (see, Galaxy Export v Bedford Textile Prods., 89 ÁD2d 576; Erlich v Erlich, 80 AD2d 882). Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. In any event, were we to reach the merits we would hold that the denial of the application to transfer the case to the Jury Calendar was not an abuse of discretion. Titone, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Frank v. Gessel, 108 A.D.2d 896, 485 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

108 A.D.2d 896 (Frank v. Gessel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related