Goetz v. George Eberhard, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goetz v. George Eberhard, Inc.

13 A.D.2d 489, 212 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11810

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 489 (Goetz v. George Eberhard, Inc.) 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

Goetz v. George Eberhard, Inc., 13 A.D.2d 489, 212 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on November 30, 1960, denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for reconsideration of a denial of a preference pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion for a preference granted, with $10 costs. Considering the nature and extent of the injuries claimed to have resulted from the accident, it appears that there has been such a permanent and protracted disability as to warrant a possible evaluation in an amount beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the City Court. In addition, plaintiff claims to have sustained special damages of approximately $2,000. Under the circumstances, a preference under rule Y should have been granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered on November 30, 1960, denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for reconsideration of a denial of a preference pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion for a preference granted, with $10 costs. Considering the nature and extent of the injuries claimed to have resulted from the accident, it appears that there has been such a permanent and protracted disability as to warrant a possible evaluation in an amount beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the City Court. In addition, plaintiff claims to have sustained special damages of approximately $2,000. Under the circumstances, a preference under rule Y should have been granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 489, 212 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goetz-v-george-eberhard-inc-nyappdiv-1961.