Balber v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Balber v. City of New York

285 A.D. 1168, 140 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7031

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

DecidedMay 16, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1168 (Balber v. City of New York) 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

Balber v. City of New York, 285 A.D. 1168, 140 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting their motion to reconsider a previous determination made pursuant to subdivision (bb) of rule 2 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules, which marked the action off the general calendar and placed it on a deferred calendar, and on reconsideration denying their motion for a preference. Order modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph thereof the word “denied” and by substituting therefor the words “granted to the extent of restoring the cause to the general calendar ”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the proof presented was sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to the relief sought. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting their motion to reconsider a previous determination made pursuant to subdivision (bb) of rule 2 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules, which marked the action off the general calendar and placed it on a deferred calendar, and on reconsideration denying their motion for a preference. Order modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph thereof the word “denied” and by substituting therefor the words “granted to the extent of restoring the cause to the general calendar ”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the proof presented was sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to the relief sought. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1168, 140 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balber-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1955.