Opinion
2013-07031, Index No. 10-05274.
09-16-2015
Joseph GIARDINA, etc., respondent, v. Lynne R. BARASCH, et al., appellants.
Shapiro, Beilly & Aronowitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Roy J. Karlin of counsel), for appellants. Michael Fuller Sirignano, Cross River, N.Y., for respondent.
Shapiro, Beilly & Aronowitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Roy J. Karlin of counsel), for appellants. Michael Fuller Sirignano, Cross River, N.Y., for respondent.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated June 18, 2013, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff's decedent and against them in the principal sum of $1,275,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Applications for continuances are addressed to the sound discretion of trial courts (see MRI Enters., Inc. v. Comprehensive Med. Care of N.Y., P.C., 122 A.D.3d 595, 596, 996 N.Y.S.2d 119 ; Black v. St. Luke's Cornwall Hosp., 112 A.D.3d 661, 661, 976 N.Y.S.2d 562 ; Noble Thread Corp. v. Noble Group Corp., 46 A.D.3d 778, 779, 847 N.Y.S.2d 668 ), and in determining such applications courts must undertake a “balanced consideration” of all relevant factors (Noble Thread Corp. v. Noble Group Corp., 46 A.D.3d at 779, 847 N.Y.S.2d 668 ; see Matter of Sicurella v. Embro, 31 A.D.3d 651, 651, 819 N.Y.S.2d 75 ). In determining the defendants' application for a continuance of the trial, the Supreme Court undertook a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, and did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the application.
The defendants' remaining contention is without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, MILLER and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.