Hurst v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hurst v. Hamilton

24 A.D.2d 763, 263 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3297

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 763 (Hurst v. Hamilton) 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

Hurst v. Hamilton, 24 A.D.2d 763, 263 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 30, 1964, which denied their application for a general preference; and (2) an order of said court, entered February 19, 1965 upon reconsideration, which adhered to the original determination. Order, entered February 19, 1965 reversed, without costs; plaintiffs’ application for a general preference granted; and action remitted to the Trial Term for entry of an appropriate order. Appeal from order, entered September 30, 1964, dismissed; that order has been superseded by the order of February 19, 1965. In view of the extent of the alleged special damages, and the alleged injuries and protracted treatment, all uneontroverted, it is our opinion that denial of plaintiffs’ application for a general preference constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 30, 1964, which denied their application for a general preference; and (2) an order of said court, entered February 19, 1965 upon reconsideration, which adhered to the original determination. Order, entered February 19, 1965 reversed, without costs; plaintiffs’ application for a general preference granted; and action remitted to the Trial Term for entry of an appropriate order. Appeal from order, entered September 30, 1964, dismissed; that order has been superseded by the order of February 19, 1965. In view of the extent of the alleged special damages, and the alleged injuries and protracted treatment, all uneontroverted, it is our opinion that denial of plaintiffs’ application for a general preference constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 763, 263 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurst-v-hamilton-nyappdiv-1965.