From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrafato v. Franzitta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 15, 2003
308 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-03958, 2001-08273

Argued May 12, 2003.

September 15, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated April 3, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Vincent Franzitta and Anna Franzitta, and the separate motion of the defendants Tremendous Deli Grocery Corp. and Gamal A. Hanif, a/k/a Gamal Hanaif, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, upon the plaintiffs' default in opposing the motions, and (2) an order of the same court dated July 27, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to renew and reargue the motions for summary judgment and/or to vacate the order dated April 3, 2001.

Edward Vilinsky, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.

Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman Jacobson, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Kevin J. Spencer of counsel; Jennifer Traystman on the brief), for respondents Vincent Franzitta and Anna Franzitta.

Hawkins, Feretic, Daly Maroney, P.C., New York, N.Y. (William E. Fay III and Thomas J. Maroney of counsel), for respondents Tremendous Deli Grocery Corp. and Gamal A. Hanif, a/k/a Gamal Hanaif.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 3, 2001, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated July 27, 2001, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated July 27, 2001, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

Applications for adjournments are committed to the sound discretion of the court ( see Coronet Capital Co. v. Spodek, 265 A.D.2d 291, 292; Ortolani v. Town of Hempstead, 256 A.D.2d 451; cf. Matter of Weinstock, 283 A.D.2d 511). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' application for an adjournment of the return date of the motion of the defendants Vincent Franzitta and Anna Franzitta, and the separate motion of the defendants Tremendous Deli Grocery Corp. and Gamal A. Hanif, a/k/a Gamal Hanaif, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them ( see Matter of Estate of Lovick, 201 A.D.2d 736, 737; see also Zavurov v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 491, 493). Since the plaintiffs possessed most of the evidence they claimed they needed to oppose the defendants' motions, including a purported dying declaration of the decedent, the plaintiffs failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default in answering the summary judgment motions ( see Juarbe v. City of New York, 303 A.D.2d 462; Farraj v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 227 A.D.2d 585, 586). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the order dated April 3, 2001.

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to reach the plaintiffs' remaining contentions.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barrafato v. Franzitta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 15, 2003
308 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Barrafato v. Franzitta

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH BARRAFATO, ETC., ET AL., appellants, v. VINCENT FRANZITTA, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 15, 2003

Citations

308 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
764 N.Y.S.2d 639

Citing Cases

Vernon v. Vernon

However, the defendant's challenge to that portion of the judgment awarding the plaintiff a divorce must be…

Popalardo v. Marino

The plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court should have granted her an adjournment to submit papers…