Garcia v. Hertz Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Hertz Co.

19 A.D.2d 617, 241 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3537

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

DecidedJune 25, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 617 (Garcia v. Hertz Co.) 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

Garcia v. Hertz Co., 19 A.D.2d 617, 241 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on January 15, 1963, denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of [618]*618an order revoking his preference under former subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, now Special Rule of the Appellate Division, First Department, regulating the granting of preferences in actions for personal injuries, effective March 1, 1962, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and the motion granted. A preference once granted should not ibe revoked unless facts elicited at a pretrial conference satisfactorily show that the preference should not be continued. There was no such showing here. {Lee v. Lehrer, 3 A D 2d 702.) In the circumstances it was an unwise exercise of discretion to deny the motion for reconsideration. {Sulahian v. City of New York, 19 A D 2d 522; Murphy v. Valeray Beal Estate Co., 19 A D 2d 601.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on January 15, 1963, denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of [618]*618an order revoking his preference under former subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, now Special Rule of the Appellate Division, First Department, regulating the granting of preferences in actions for personal injuries, effective March 1, 1962, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and the motion granted. A preference once granted should not ibe revoked unless facts elicited at a pretrial conference satisfactorily show that the preference should not be continued. There was no such showing here. {Lee v. Lehrer, 3 A D 2d 702.) In the circumstances it was an unwise exercise of discretion to deny the motion for reconsideration. {Sulahian v. City of New York, 19 A D 2d 522; Murphy v. Valeray Beal Estate Co., 19 A D 2d 601.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 617, 241 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-hertz-co-nyappdiv-1963.