Case Name: Joseph Giardina, Respondent, v. Lynne R. Barasch et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-09-16
Citations: 131 A.D.3d 1007
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Giardina, Respondent, v Lynne R. Barasch et al., Appellants.
Judges: Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 1007–1007

Head Matter:
Joseph Giardina, Respondent, v Lynne R. Barasch et al., Appellants.
[16 NYS3d 461]

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 AD3d 595, 596 [2014]; Black v St. Luke's Cornwall Hosp., 112 AD3d 661, 661 [2013]; Noble Thread Corp. v Noble Group Corp., 46 AD3d 778, 779 [2007]), and in determining such applications courts must undertake a "balanced consideration" of all relevant factors (Noble Thread Corp. v Noble Group Corp., 46 AD3d at 779; see Matter of Sicurella v Embro, 31 AD3d 651, 651 [2006]). 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.R, Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.