Beltran v. Borstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beltran v. Borstein

32 A.D.2d 954, 303 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3328

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 954 (Beltran v. Borstein) 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

Beltran v. Borstein, 32 A.D.2d 954, 303 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 16, 1968, which denied his motion for a special preference pursuant to CPLR 3403. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements [955]*955jointly against respondents filing separate briefs; motion for special preference granted; and case remanded to Special Term for entry of an appropriate implementing order. Plaintiff, as a result of injuries suffered in the accident in question, has been unable to work since the accident and has become a recipient of welfare from the City of. New York. The application for a special preference should have been granted (Quinones v. Hunchak, 28 A D 2d 997; Stevens v. Bridge Auto Renting Corp., 262 App. Div. 872). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, 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 injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 16, 1968, which denied his motion for a special preference pursuant to CPLR 3403. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements [955]*955jointly against respondents filing separate briefs; motion for special preference granted; and case remanded to Special Term for entry of an appropriate implementing order. Plaintiff, as a result of injuries suffered in the accident in question, has been unable to work since the accident and has become a recipient of welfare from the City of. New York. The application for a special preference should have been granted (Quinones v. Hunchak, 28 A D 2d 997; Stevens v. Bridge Auto Renting Corp., 262 App. Div. 872). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 954, 303 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beltran-v-borstein-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack