Heyman v. Hillside Prescription Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heyman v. Hillside Prescription Center, Inc.

26 A.D.2d 931, 276 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2988

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 931 (Heyman v. Hillside Prescription Center, 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

Heyman v. Hillside Prescription Center, Inc., 26 A.D.2d 931, 276 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on March 7, 1966, affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent. There was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a general preference. The record, particularly the medical proof, amply warranted the disposition made. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.; Capozzoli, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse and grant plaintiff’s application for a general preference. The diagnosis of the treating physician as to the presence of a compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra is confirmed by the X-ray examination. It is further revealed that the plaintiff was fitted with a brace, which she was still wearing at the time of making this motion,

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

Order, entered on March 7, 1966, affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent. There was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a general preference. The record, particularly the medical proof, amply warranted the disposition made. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.; Capozzoli, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse and grant plaintiff’s application for a general preference. The diagnosis of the treating physician as to the presence of a compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra is confirmed by the X-ray examination. It is further revealed that the plaintiff was fitted with a brace, which she was still wearing at the time of making this motion,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 931, 276 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heyman-v-hillside-prescription-center-inc-nyappdiv-1966.