Case Name: Jason Coleman, Appellant, v. Mettler-Toledo, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants; Mettler-Toledo, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Penn Associates, Ltd., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1995-02-03
Citations: 212 A.D.2d 971
Docket Number: Appeal No. 1
Parties: Jason Coleman, Appellant, v Mettler-Toledo, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. Mettler-Toledo, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Penn Associates, Ltd., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 212
Pages: 971–971

Head Matter:
Jason Coleman, Appellant, v Mettler-Toledo, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. Mettler-Toledo, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Penn Associates, Ltd., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
(Appeal No. 1.)
[624 NYS2d 989]

Opinion:
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff a continuance to respond to the motion for summary judgment of defendant Mettler-Toledo, Inc. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance (see, Henderson v Stilwell, 116 AD2d 861, 862, Iv denied 68 NY2d 606; Wallin v Wallin, 34 AD2d 870; Hubbell Elec, v State of New York, 153 Mise 2d 810, 813-814). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.