Epstein v. Angelica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Epstein v. Angelica

25 A.D.2d 680, 268 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4669

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 680 (Epstein v. Angelica) 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

Epstein v. Angelica, 25 A.D.2d 680, 268 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 31, 1965 upon reconsideration, which adhered to the original decision denying a general preference for the trial of the aetion. Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, plaintiff’s proof was insufficient to show a causal connection between the accident and his alleged prolonged disability and substantial loss of earnings. Without such proof, Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying the preference (see Steitz v. Gifford, 280' N. Y. 15, 20-21).

Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to modify the order so as to grant the preference.

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 injury, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 31, 1965 upon reconsideration, which adhered to the original decision denying a general preference for the trial of the aetion. Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, plaintiff’s proof was insufficient to show a causal connection between the accident and his alleged prolonged disability and substantial loss of earnings. Without such proof, Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying the preference (see Steitz v. Gifford, 280' N. Y. 15, 20-21).

Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to modify the order so as to grant the preference.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 680, 268 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epstein-v-angelica-nyappdiv-1966.