Zeitlin v. Merrick Bay Park, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zeitlin v. Merrick Bay Park, Inc.

56 Misc. 2d 1039, 290 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1416

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 5, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 Misc. 2d 1039 (Zeitlin v. Merrick Bay Park, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zeitlin v. Merrick Bay Park, Inc., 56 Misc. 2d 1039, 290 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Under the circumstances shown here, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in refusing defendant’s request for an adjournment. Aside from the fact that defendant had adequate time, prior to the trial date, to implead the proposed third-party defendant, it is admitted that no notification was given to plaintiffs that an adjournment of the trial would be requested. On these facts, to compel plaintiffs to again return to court for the trial of a small claim would tend to defeat the beneficial purpose of the Small Claims Part which is to afford an individual the opportunity to litigate a matter personally with the least possible delay or expense.

The judgment should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Glickman and Pittoni, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Under the circumstances shown here, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in refusing defendant’s request for an adjournment. Aside from the fact that defendant had adequate time, prior to the trial date, to implead the proposed third-party defendant, it is admitted that no notification was given to plaintiffs that an adjournment of the trial would be requested. On these facts, to compel plaintiffs to again return to court for the trial of a small claim would tend to defeat the beneficial purpose of the Small Claims Part which is to afford an individual the opportunity to litigate a matter personally with the least possible delay or expense.

The judgment should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Glickman and Pittoni, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Misc. 2d 1039, 290 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeitlin-v-merrick-bay-park-inc-nyappterm-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack