Brenner v. Sewall — 124 A.D.2d 620

Majority

p. 620

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

p. 621

tion.)

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.

Cases cited

Leiner v. Howard's Appliance of Commack, Inc. 104 AD2d 634 N.Y. App. Div. 1984-09-24 p. 621