Goldsman v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldsman v. New York Telephone Co.

23 A.D.2d 771, 258 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4455

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

DecidedApril 12, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 771 (Goldsman v. New York Telephone 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

Goldsman v. New York Telephone Co., 23 A.D.2d 771, 258 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 25, 1964, which in effect denied his renewed motion for a general preference in trial; such denial being predicated, in part, upon the report of an impartial physician designated by the court with the consent of the parties. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; plaintiff’s renewed motion for a preference granted; and action remitted to the court below with the direction that the action be accorded a general preference in trial. Under the circumstances here presented, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the preference. 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 a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 25, 1964, which in effect denied his renewed motion for a general preference in trial; such denial being predicated, in part, upon the report of an impartial physician designated by the court with the consent of the parties. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; plaintiff’s renewed motion for a preference granted; and action remitted to the court below with the direction that the action be accorded a general preference in trial. Under the circumstances here presented, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the preference. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 771, 258 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldsman-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1965.