Tesciuba v. Cataldo
This text of 189 A.D.2d 655 (Tesciuba v. Cataldo) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.), entered November 4, 1991, which denied plaintiffs motion for an extension of time within which to seek a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff additional time pursuant to CPLR 2004 within which to make a post-trial motion for a new trial pursuant to CPLR 4404 and 4405, there being no explanation from plaintiff showing "good cause” for his lengthy delay of more than two years in seeking such an extension, and defendant having died and the Trial Judge having retired in the interim (see, St. Louis v Willey, 92 AD2d 703). Moreover, there can be no review of plaintiffs claimed entitlement to a new trial without a full trial record (see, Robinson & Carpenter v Gangl, 31 AD2d 665). We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
189 A.D.2d 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tesciuba-v-cataldo-nyappdiv-1993.