Ciesla v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciesla v. City of New York

38 A.D.2d 955, 331 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5103

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 955 (Ciesla 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

Ciesla v. City of New York, 38 A.D.2d 955, 331 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 23, 1971, as, upon reconsideration, adhered to the original decision denying his application for a general preference. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements against respondents jointly, and motion for a general preference granted. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this ease, the nature and extent of the disabilities claimed to have resulted from the accident, and the earnings allegedly lost as a result of the accident, were sufficient to warrant the grant of a general preference. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 23, 1971, as, upon reconsideration, adhered to the original decision denying his application for a general preference. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements against respondents jointly, and motion for a general preference granted. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this ease, the nature and extent of the disabilities claimed to have resulted from the accident, and the earnings allegedly lost as a result of the accident, were sufficient to warrant the grant of a general preference. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 955, 331 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciesla-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1972.