Boito v. Tukman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boito v. Tukman

20 A.D.2d 523, 244 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2750

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 523 (Boito v. Tukman) 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

Boito v. Tukman, 20 A.D.2d 523, 244 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on April 17, 1963, denying the application of the plaintiff for a special rule preference in this action for personal injuries, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and preference granted, with $10 costs. Considering the nature and the extent of the injuries claimed to have resulted from the accident, and the special damages alleged to have been sustained, and in view of the medical reports presented by plaintiff on the application, there was presented a prima facie case of a “permanent or protracted disability” to warrant the granting of a preference. (See Supreme Court Bronx and New York County Rules, rule IX, subd. 3; also Flink v. Hospital for Joint Diseases, 18 A D 2d 906 and eases cited.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered on April 17, 1963, denying the application of the plaintiff for a special rule preference in this action for personal injuries, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and preference granted, with $10 costs. Considering the nature and the extent of the injuries claimed to have resulted from the accident, and the special damages alleged to have been sustained, and in view of the medical reports presented by plaintiff on the application, there was presented a prima facie case of a “permanent or protracted disability” to warrant the granting of a preference. (See Supreme Court Bronx and New York County Rules, rule IX, subd. 3; also Flink v. Hospital for Joint Diseases, 18 A D 2d 906 and eases cited.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 523, 244 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boito-v-tukman-nyappdiv-1963.