Case Name: Rose Brenner et al., Plaintiffs, v. Marie Sewall et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.); Rose Brenner et al., Appellants, v. Hubert S. Pearlman et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1986-11-10
Citations: 124 A.D.2d 620
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rose Brenner et al., Plaintiffs, v Marie Sewall et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Rose Brenner et al., Appellants, v Hubert S. Pearlman et al., Respondents. (And Another Ac tion.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
Rose Brenner et al., Plaintiffs, v Marie Sewall et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Rose Brenner et al., Appellants, v Hubert S. Pearlman et al., Respondents. (And Another Ac tion.)

Opinion:
After the trial court issued a ruling which the attorney for the plaintiffs considered to be adverse to his clients, the plaintiffs refused to proceed with the trial of their action and rested without having established a prima facie case against the respondents. Under these circumstances, it was entirely proper to enter a judgment in favor of the respondents regardless of whether the ruling by which the plaintiffs claimed to be aggrieved was correct (see, Leiner v Howard's Appliance, 104 AD2d 634, lv denied 64 NY2d 603).
In any event, the trial court's ruling, which denied the plaintiffs' application for a mistrial, was in all respects correct. The judgment under review should therefore be affirmed. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.