McDonald v. Justian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McDonald v. Justian

282 A.D.2d 440, 722 N.Y.S.2d 426

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 440 (McDonald v. Justian) 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

McDonald v. Justian, 282 A.D.2d 440, 722 N.Y.S.2d 426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries which were consolidated for trial, Christine McDonald and Gary McDonald appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated October 25, 2000, which denied their motion for leave to serve and file a jury demand nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the appellants are granted leave to serve and file a jury demand within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry.

In view of, inter alia, the stipulation in which the parties agreed to the rescission of the appellants’ unintentional jury waiver and to the belated filing of a jury demand, as well as the appellants’ prompt application for relief, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion (see, CPLR 4102 [a]; A.S.L. Enters. v Venus Labs., 264 AD2d 372; Breezy Point Coop. v Young, 234 AD2d 409). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries which were consolidated for trial, Christine McDonald and Gary McDonald appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated October 25, 2000, which denied their motion for leave to serve and file a jury demand nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the appellants are granted leave to serve and file a jury demand within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry.

In view of, inter alia, the stipulation in which the parties agreed to the rescission of the appellants’ unintentional jury waiver and to the belated filing of a jury demand, as well as the appellants’ prompt application for relief, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion (see, CPLR 4102 [a]; A.S.L. Enters. v Venus Labs., 264 AD2d 372; Breezy Point Coop. v Young, 234 AD2d 409). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 440, 722 N.Y.S.2d 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-justian-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack