Braman v. Auserehl & Son Contracting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braman v. Auserehl & Son Contracting Corp.

20 A.D.2d 806, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4163

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 806 (Braman v. Auserehl & Son Contracting Corp.) 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

Braman v. Auserehl & Son Contracting Corp., 20 A.D.2d 806, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 6, 1963, as denied his motion for a preference in trial, pursuant to statute (C'PLR 3403). Order insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs and without prejudice to renewal of the motion. This court is cognizant of the possibility of a substantial change in plaintiff's circumstances at the time he is discharged from the hospital. This disposition is, therefore, without prejudice to a renewal of the motion for a preference, at such time, upon appropriate papers showing such change of circumstances. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 6, 1963, as denied his motion for a preference in trial, pursuant to statute (C'PLR 3403). Order insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs and without prejudice to renewal of the motion. This court is cognizant of the possibility of a substantial change in plaintiff's circumstances at the time he is discharged from the hospital. This disposition is, therefore, without prejudice to a renewal of the motion for a preference, at such time, upon appropriate papers showing such change of circumstances. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 806, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braman-v-auserehl-son-contracting-corp-nyappdiv-1964.