Hoyt v. Kazel

265 A.D.2d 527, 697 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10842
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 25, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 527 (Hoyt v. Kazel) 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
Hoyt v. Kazel, 265 A.D.2d 527, 697 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated September 2, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which was for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 340 (a) (3), and (2) from an order of the same court, dated December 16, 1998, as, upon, in effect, granting reargument, adhered to its prior determination denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a trial preference.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 2, 1998, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 16, 1998, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 16, 1998, is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a trial preference is [528]*528granted, and the order dated September 2, 1998, is modified accordingly; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff sought a trial preference on the ground of his indigency (see, CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; Cenname v Lindholm, 69 AD2d 848). It is undisputed that the plaintiff is receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits and food stamps owing to his indigency. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s application for a trial preference should have been granted (see, Biengardo v Ter Bush, 54 AD2d 570). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Smith v. City of New York
5 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Wassel v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
307 A.D.2d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 A.D.2d 527, 697 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-kazel-nyappdiv-1999.