From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Banushi v. Lambrakos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 2003
305 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-03383

Argued April 28, 2003.

May 19, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), entered April 12, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Alan Chambers, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.

Marshall, Conway Wright, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joseph J. Andriola of counsel), for respondents.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, they were not prejudiced by the Supreme Court's decision to allow them to proceed pro se. "A litigant appearing pro se acquires no greater right than any other litigant and such appearance may not be used to deprive defendants of the same rights enjoyed by other defendants" (Roundtree v. Singh, 143 A.D.2d 995, 996). The plaintiffs appeared pro se at the trial at their own peril.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., COZIER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Banushi v. Lambrakos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 2003
305 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Banushi v. Lambrakos

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT BANUSHI, ET AL., appellants, v. KOSTA LAMBRAKOS, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: May 19, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 345

Citing Cases

Tannenbaum v. Franck

Notably, the trial court repeatedly cautioned plaintiffs as to the lack of such medical proof during the…

Ruffalo v. Firestone Complete Auto Care

A pro se litigant appears so "at their own peril." (Banushi v. Lambrakos, 305 AD2d 524 [2nd Dept…