Borenstein v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Borenstein v. City of New York

248 A.D.2d 425, 668 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2331

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 425 (Borenstein 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

Borenstein v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 425, 668 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated September 16, 1997, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (4) for a special trial preference.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The Supreme Court improperly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (4). The injured plaintiff’s husband, who is over 70 years of age, possesses a recognizable cause of action. Therefore, under CPLR 3403 (a) (4), the plaintiffs are automatically entitled to a special trial preference (see, Milton Point Realty Co. v Haas, 91 AD2d 678; Bobowski v Toomey, 108 Misc 2d 1061; cf., Longo v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 100 Misc 2d 606).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated September 16, 1997, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (4) for a special trial preference.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The Supreme Court improperly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (4). The injured plaintiff’s husband, who is over 70 years of age, possesses a recognizable cause of action. Therefore, under CPLR 3403 (a) (4), the plaintiffs are automatically entitled to a special trial preference (see, Milton Point Realty Co. v Haas, 91 AD2d 678; Bobowski v Toomey, 108 Misc 2d 1061; cf., Longo v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 100 Misc 2d 606).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 425, 668 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borenstein-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack