Beckman v. H. Thoma Excavating, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beckman v. H. Thoma Excavating, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 471, 261 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3936

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

DecidedJune 14, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 471 (Beckman v. H. Thoma Excavating, Inc.) 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

Beckman v. H. Thoma Excavating, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 471, 261 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered December 23, 1964, which denied his motion for a rehearing of the denial of his prior application for a general preference in trial. Such motion for a rehearing was based on additional affidavits and was, in effect, a new motion for the preference. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion granted; and general preference in trial directed to be accorded to this action. In our opinion, under all the facts and circumstances disclosed by this record, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to have denied the preference. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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 injury, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered December 23, 1964, which denied his motion for a rehearing of the denial of his prior application for a general preference in trial. Such motion for a rehearing was based on additional affidavits and was, in effect, a new motion for the preference. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion granted; and general preference in trial directed to be accorded to this action. In our opinion, under all the facts and circumstances disclosed by this record, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to have denied the preference. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 471, 261 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckman-v-h-thoma-excavating-inc-nyappdiv-1965.