Buonanno v. Roland Cyr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buonanno v. Roland Cyr

19 A.D.2d 792, 243 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 792 (Buonanno v. Roland Cyr) 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

Buonanno v. Roland Cyr, 19 A.D.2d 792, 243 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services and medical expenses, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 22,1963 after a pretrial conference, which granted a preference in trial and set the ease down for trial at the head of the calendar for the opening of the September 1963 Term. Order reversed, without costs, and preference vacated without prejudice to a further application for a preference. In the absence of a stenographic transcript of the hearing or other appropriate proof showing the facts on which the Justice at the pretrial [793]*793hearing based the exercise of his discretion in granting the preference, the propriety of- the order cannot be adequately reviewed (Abramson v. Kenwood Labs., 17 A JD 2d 626; Edelson v. BieMer, 18 A D 2d 1096). Here the record is not adequate to justify an affirm a pee. Reldook, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, 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 injury, loss of services and medical expenses, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 22,1963 after a pretrial conference, which granted a preference in trial and set the ease down for trial at the head of the calendar for the opening of the September 1963 Term. Order reversed, without costs, and preference vacated without prejudice to a further application for a preference. In the absence of a stenographic transcript of the hearing or other appropriate proof showing the facts on which the Justice at the pretrial [793]*793hearing based the exercise of his discretion in granting the preference, the propriety of- the order cannot be adequately reviewed (Abramson v. Kenwood Labs., 17 A JD 2d 626; Edelson v. BieMer, 18 A D 2d 1096). Here the record is not adequate to justify an affirm a pee. Reldook, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 792, 243 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buonanno-v-roland-cyr-nyappdiv-1963.