Fox v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fox v. Goodman

23 A.D.2d 770, 258 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4451

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

DecidedApril 12, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 770 (Fox v. Goodman) 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

Fox v. Goodman, 23 A.D.2d 770, 258 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 27, 1964 upon renewal and reconsideration of plaintiffs’ application for a general preference in trial, as adhered to the court’s original decision denying the application. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements ; plaintiffs’ application for preference granted; and action remitted to the court below for the purpose of placing it in the appropriate position upon the Trial Calendar. In our opinion, under the circumstances here, it was error to deny the plaintiffs’ application (see Martvrwno v. Valger, 19 A D 2d 544; Schott v. Hertz Corp., 19 A D 2d 643). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, 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, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 27, 1964 upon renewal and reconsideration of plaintiffs’ application for a general preference in trial, as adhered to the court’s original decision denying the application. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements ; plaintiffs’ application for preference granted; and action remitted to the court below for the purpose of placing it in the appropriate position upon the Trial Calendar. In our opinion, under the circumstances here, it was error to deny the plaintiffs’ application (see Martvrwno v. Valger, 19 A D 2d 544; Schott v. Hertz Corp., 19 A D 2d 643). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 770, 258 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-goodman-nyappdiv-1965.