Brenton v. Tiripicchio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brenton v. Tiripicchio

54 A.D.2d 571, 387 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13907

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 571 (Brenton v. Tiripicchio) 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

Brenton v. Tiripicchio, 54 A.D.2d 571, 387 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered April 19, 1976, which denied their motion for a special preference, with leave to renew upon an affidavit of a physician to the effect that plaintiff Bernard Brenton is unable to work as a result of the accident. Order modified by deleting therefrom all of the words following "is hereby denied” and substituting therefor the following: "with leave to renew upon proof of indigency, including the fact that plaintiff Bernard Brenton is unable to work”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff Bernard Brenton must establish that the interests of justice [572]*572will be served by an early trial, but he is not required to establish a causal connection between his indigency and the incident which gave rise to the cause of action (see Matheson v Joy-Kar Taxi, 32 AD2d 544; cf. Biengardo v Ter Bush, 54 AD2d 570). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered April 19, 1976, which denied their motion for a special preference, with leave to renew upon an affidavit of a physician to the effect that plaintiff Bernard Brenton is unable to work as a result of the accident. Order modified by deleting therefrom all of the words following "is hereby denied” and substituting therefor the following: "with leave to renew upon proof of indigency, including the fact that plaintiff Bernard Brenton is unable to work”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff Bernard Brenton must establish that the interests of justice [572]*572will be served by an early trial, but he is not required to establish a causal connection between his indigency and the incident which gave rise to the cause of action (see Matheson v Joy-Kar Taxi, 32 AD2d 544; cf. Biengardo v Ter Bush, 54 AD2d 570). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 571, 387 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brenton-v-tiripicchio-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack