Carlo v. Riverdale Ice Skating Rink, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carlo v. Riverdale Ice Skating Rink, Inc.

6 A.D.2d 1036, 178 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4548

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 1036 (Carlo v. Riverdale Ice Skating Rink, Inc.) 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

Carlo v. Riverdale Ice Skating Rink, Inc., 6 A.D.2d 1036, 178 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant appeals from a Special Term order granting the plaintiff a preference for a trial for a day certain under the Rules of Civil Practice (rule 151, subd. 3). The preference was predicated upon the fact that the defendant’s carrier is now in liquidation. While a broad interpretation of the rule or of the term “ [in] the interests of justice ” is desirable, it should not be used as a means of assuring the payment of a judgment by a carrier. The Special Term order is reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied on the facts and in the exercise of discretion. Concur — Botein, P. J., M. M. Frank, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

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

The defendant appeals from a Special Term order granting the plaintiff a preference for a trial for a day certain under the Rules of Civil Practice (rule 151, subd. 3). The preference was predicated upon the fact that the defendant’s carrier is now in liquidation. While a broad interpretation of the rule or of the term “ [in] the interests of justice ” is desirable, it should not be used as a means of assuring the payment of a judgment by a carrier. The Special Term order is reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied on the facts and in the exercise of discretion. Concur — Botein, P. J., M. M. Frank, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 1036, 178 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlo-v-riverdale-ice-skating-rink-inc-nyappdiv-1958.