Steinbach v. Donnelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinbach v. Donnelli

141 A.D.2d 630, 529 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6635

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

DecidedJune 13, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 A.D.2d 630 (Steinbach v. Donnelli) 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

Steinbach v. Donnelli, 141 A.D.2d 630, 529 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated November 13, 1986, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion for judgment during trial (CPLR 4401), is in favor of the defendant and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and a new trial is granted.

After denying the plaintiffs’ application for a brief continuance, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment during trial (CPLR 4401) based upon its determination that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a prima facie case. The judgment which was thereafter entered is, contrary to the defendant’s contention, appealable as of right, and the plaintiffs’ appeal brings up for review the court’s ruling denying the application for a continuance (CPLR 5701 [a] [1], [3]). Considering all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ request for a continuance (see generally, Sutter v Nelson, 126 AD2d 634, 635; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Bologna, 114 AD2d 796; Cuevas v Cuevas, 110 AD2d 873). The matter is therefore remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new trial. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated November 13, 1986, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion for judgment during trial (CPLR 4401), is in favor of the defendant and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and a new trial is granted.

After denying the plaintiffs’ application for a brief continuance, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment during trial (CPLR 4401) based upon its determination that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a prima facie case. The judgment which was thereafter entered is, contrary to the defendant’s contention, appealable as of right, and the plaintiffs’ appeal brings up for review the court’s ruling denying the application for a continuance (CPLR 5701 [a] [1], [3]). Considering all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ request for a continuance (see generally, Sutter v Nelson, 126 AD2d 634, 635; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Bologna, 114 AD2d 796; Cuevas v Cuevas, 110 AD2d 873). The matter is therefore remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new trial. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 630, 529 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinbach-v-donnelli-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack