Haber v. Cross County Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haber v. Cross County Hospital

42 A.D.2d 700, 346 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3927

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 700 (Haber v. Cross County Hospital) 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

Haber v. Cross County Hospital, 42 A.D.2d 700, 346 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Rae Haber and for loss of services and medical expenses incurred by her husband, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 26, 1972, which denied their renewed motion for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403. Order reversed, and renewed motion granted, with $20 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff Rae Haber is now 73 years of age and the unrefuted medical proof indicates “ with a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that she is unlikely to survive the normal delay to be expected before this type of action reaches trial. Under these circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur. 12 Max v. First Westchester National Bank

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 injuries sustained by plaintiff Rae Haber and for loss of services and medical expenses incurred by her husband, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 26, 1972, which denied their renewed motion for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403. Order reversed, and renewed motion granted, with $20 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff Rae Haber is now 73 years of age and the unrefuted medical proof indicates “ with a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that she is unlikely to survive the normal delay to be expected before this type of action reaches trial. Under these circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur. 12 Max v. First Westchester National Bank

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 700, 346 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haber-v-cross-county-hospital-nyappdiv-1973.