From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Betke v. Archwood Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 1999
266 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted October 7, 1999

November 15, 1999

Edwin S. Clare, Commack, N.Y., for appellant.

Scibilia, Polacco Aledort, LLP, Hempstead, N.Y. (Frank A. Polacco of counsel), for respondents Archwood Estates, Inc., and Anthony S. Campo.

O'Connor O'Connor, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Denise O'Connor of counsel), for respondent J.P.R. Construction, Inc.

GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated September 9, 1998, as denied his motion for a special trial preference and denied his amended motion for, inter alia, the same relief.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff's motion for a special trial preference was properly denied since he failed to demonstrate that the interests of justice would be served by an early trial (see, CPLR 3403 [a][3]; Thompson v. City of New York, 140 A.D.2d 232, 233 ). The plaintiff proffered insufficient proof of an injury that would worsen over time, that he was unable to work, was indigent, or had an obligation as a single parent to support a dependent (see,Patterson v. Anderson Ave. Assocs., 242 A.D.2d 430 ; Kellman v. 45 Tiemann Assocs., 213 A.D.2d 151 ; Zangiacomi v. Hood, 193 A.D.2d 188, 195 ; Thompson v. City of New York, supra).

The court properly denied the relief sought in the plaintiff's amended motion since the amended motion was not served with supporting affidavits or documents (see, CPLR 2214[b]; 4Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac 2214.02). Moreover, the plaintiff offered no excuse for the failure to timely submit the supporting affidavit and documents (see, Romeo v. Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 A.D.2d 688, 690 ).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are not properly before us since they concern issues that were not decided in the order appealed from.

KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, FEUERSTEIN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Betke v. Archwood Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 1999
266 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Betke v. Archwood Estates, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GERALD BETKE, appellant, v. ARCHWOOD ESTATES, INC., et al., respondents

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 172

Citing Cases

Thompson v. Leben

Moreover, the total principal sum of $250,000 is not an excessive damages award ( see Duffy v City of New…

Sotheby's, Inc. v. Nature Morte LLC

The Defendants also failed to bring a motion to seal said exhibits such that these documents do not form part…