Groeger v. Mifleb Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Groeger v. Mifleb Realty Corp.

9 A.D.2d 684, 191 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6725

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 684 (Groeger v. Mifleb Realty Corp.) 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

Groeger v. Mifleb Realty Corp., 9 A.D.2d 684, 191 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order denying an application for a preference under rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules, unless appellant Natalie Groeger consent within a stated time to an examination by a physician designated by the court, in which event the application would be held in abeyance. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. On the basis of the medical proof submitted on the application, a denial of a preference was warranted. In the circumstances, the conditional order appealed from was within the bounds of the court’s discretion. (Cf. Cunningham v. Malbin, 8 A D 2d 949.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order denying an application for a preference under rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules, unless appellant Natalie Groeger consent within a stated time to an examination by a physician designated by the court, in which event the application would be held in abeyance. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. On the basis of the medical proof submitted on the application, a denial of a preference was warranted. In the circumstances, the conditional order appealed from was within the bounds of the court’s discretion. (Cf. Cunningham v. Malbin, 8 A D 2d 949.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 684, 191 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groeger-v-mifleb-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1959.