Smalley v. City of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smalley v. City of Poughkeepsie

133 A.D.2d 621, 519 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51661

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 621 (Smalley v. City of Poughkeepsie) 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

Smalley v. City of Poughkeepsie, 133 A.D.2d 621, 519 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered June 2, 1986, which denied their motion to strike the plaintiffs’ note of issue.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiffs originally filed a note of issue indicating that they did not want to have a jury trial. Thereafter, they moved for leave to amend their note of issue so as to demand a jury trial. That motion was denied. They did not seek renewal or reargument nor did they appeal from that order. Instead, they [622]*622withdrew their original note of issue and, before pretrial disclosure was completed, filed a new note of issue, demanding a jury trial, and stating that disclosure had been completed. The defendants moved to strike the second note of issue, and that motion was denied. This appeal ensued.

The plaintiffs’ only response to the defendants’ arguments on appeal is that the denial of the motion to strike the second note of issue was made by the Justice to whom this case had been assigned under the Individual Assignment System, and that we must defer to her. However, in light of the denial of the plaintiffs’ prior motion to amend their first note of issue, and their failure to appeal therefrom, allowing the second note of issue to stand would be inappropriate. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered June 2, 1986, which denied their motion to strike the plaintiffs’ note of issue.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiffs originally filed a note of issue indicating that they did not want to have a jury trial. Thereafter, they moved for leave to amend their note of issue so as to demand a jury trial. That motion was denied. They did not seek renewal or reargument nor did they appeal from that order. Instead, they [622]*622withdrew their original note of issue and, before pretrial disclosure was completed, filed a new note of issue, demanding a jury trial, and stating that disclosure had been completed. The defendants moved to strike the second note of issue, and that motion was denied. This appeal ensued.

The plaintiffs’ only response to the defendants’ arguments on appeal is that the denial of the motion to strike the second note of issue was made by the Justice to whom this case had been assigned under the Individual Assignment System, and that we must defer to her. However, in light of the denial of the plaintiffs’ prior motion to amend their first note of issue, and their failure to appeal therefrom, allowing the second note of issue to stand would be inappropriate. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 621, 519 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smalley-v-city-of-poughkeepsie-nyappdiv-1987.