Cunningham v. Malbin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. Malbin

8 A.D.2d 949, 190 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7538

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 949 (Cunningham v. Malbin) 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

Cunningham v. Malbin, 8 A.D.2d 949, 190 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order which on reargument adhered to the original decision denying [950]*950appellant’s application for a preference under rule 9 of the- Kings County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, unless she consent within a stated time to an ftTrn.minfl.tion by a physician to be designated by the court, in which event the decision on reargument will be held in abeyance. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. On the basis of the medical proof submitted on the application, a denial of a preference was warranted. In the circumstances, the conditional order appealed from was within the bounds of the court’s discretion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, 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 injuries, the appeal is from an order which on reargument adhered to the original decision denying [950]*950appellant’s application for a preference under rule 9 of the- Kings County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, unless she consent within a stated time to an ftTrn.minfl.tion by a physician to be designated by the court, in which event the decision on reargument will be held in abeyance. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. On the basis of the medical proof submitted on the application, a denial of a preference was warranted. In the circumstances, the conditional order appealed from was within the bounds of the court’s discretion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 949, 190 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-malbin-nyappdiv-1959.