Arrabito v. Bressler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arrabito v. Bressler

40 A.D.2d 608, 335 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3873

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 25, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 608 (Arrabito v. Bressler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arrabito v. Bressler, 40 A.D.2d 608, 335 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 26, 1971, which denied his motion for a general preference. Order reversed, with $10' costs and disbursements, and motion granted. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this case, the nature and extent of the injuries and disabilities claimed to have resulted from the accident, and the items claimed as special damages, were sufficient to warrant the granting of a general preference. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: In my opinion this is a small ease of minor injuries grossly exaggerated for the purpose of this action which the Justice at Special Term properly relegated to a trial in the Civil Court of the City of New York.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 26, 1971, which denied his motion for a general preference. Order reversed, with $10' costs and disbursements, and motion granted. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this case, the nature and extent of the injuries and disabilities claimed to have resulted from the accident, and the items claimed as special damages, were sufficient to warrant the granting of a general preference. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: In my opinion this is a small ease of minor injuries grossly exaggerated for the purpose of this action which the Justice at Special Term properly relegated to a trial in the Civil Court of the City of New York.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 608, 335 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrabito-v-bressler-nyappdiv-1972.