Leggett v. Castillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leggett v. Castillo

227 A.D.2d 384, 642 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4938

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

DecidedMay 6, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 384 (Leggett v. Castillo) 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

Leggett v. Castillo, 227 A.D.2d 384, 642 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), entered July 31, 1995, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 1, 1995, denying his motion for a continuance and granting the separate motions of the defendants Zenaida Castillo and Braulio Castillo, and the defendant Nesly Beavsoliel, respectively, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondent Nesly Beavsoliel.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied the plaintiffs request for a continuance pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) (see, Pannullo v Staro, 139 AD2d 636; see generally, Freier v AMAX, Inc., 217 AD2d 981).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, 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 County (Vinik, J.), entered July 31, 1995, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 1, 1995, denying his motion for a continuance and granting the separate motions of the defendants Zenaida Castillo and Braulio Castillo, and the defendant Nesly Beavsoliel, respectively, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondent Nesly Beavsoliel.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied the plaintiffs request for a continuance pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) (see, Pannullo v Staro, 139 AD2d 636; see generally, Freier v AMAX, Inc., 217 AD2d 981).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 384, 642 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leggett-v-castillo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack