Pitts v. City of Buffalo

19 A.D.3d 1030, 796 N.Y.S.2d 286, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6274
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 1030 (Pitts v. City of Buffalo) 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
Pitts v. City of Buffalo, 19 A.D.3d 1030, 796 N.Y.S.2d 286, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered February 6, 2004. The order granted the motion of defendants the City of Buffalo, Anthony M. Masiello, Mayor of the City of Buffalo, and the Common Council of the City of Buffalo for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting the motion of defendants the City of Buffalo, its Mayor, and its Common Council for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff’s sole contention is that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying an adjournment of the return date of that motion. A request for an adjournment is entrusted to the sound discretion of the court, whose determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse or improvident exercise of that discretion (see Betro v Carbone, 5 AD3d 1110, 1110-1111 [2004]; Harper v Han Chang, 267 AD2d 1011, 1011-1012 [1999]; Herbert v Edwards Super Food Stores-Finast Supermarkets, 253 AD2d 789 [1998]; Paulino v Marchelletta, 216 AD2d 446, 446-447 [1995]). Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the court abused or improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the request (see Barrafato v Franzitta, 308 AD2d 468, 469 [2003]; see also Betro, 5 AD3d at 1110; Harper, 267 AD2d at 1011-1012; Matter of Petkovsek v Snyder, 251 AD2d 1088, 1089 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 942 [1998]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Schoenhals v. Morton
2025 NY Slip Op 05369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
MCINTOSH, JOHN A. v. GENESEE VALLEY LASER CENTRE
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
McIntosh v. Genesee Valley Laser Centre
121 A.D.3d 1560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Counsel Financial Services, LLC v. Leibowitz
67 A.D.3d 1483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Almasy v. Ward
53 A.D.3d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Sicurella v. Embro
31 A.D.3d 651 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A.D.3d 1030, 796 N.Y.S.2d 286, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitts-v-city-of-buffalo-nyappdiv-2005.