Jacovsky v. Proscero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacovsky v. Proscero

22 A.D.2d 688, 253 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3107

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 688 (Jacovsky v. Proscero) 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

Jacovsky v. Proscero, 22 A.D.2d 688, 253 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, etc., the defendant A. J. Bell Co. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 20, 1964, as, in granting plaintiffs’ motion to settle a typewritten transcript of the stenographic minutes of the trial (for the purpose of an appeal to this court from a judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of the ease after a jury trial), authorized the abridgement of the transcript by omitting the medical testimony of the doctor. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs; plaintiffs’ motion insofar as it seeks such abridgement of the transcript denied; and transcript directed to be settled by including therein all the testimony adduced at the trial (see Ferry v. Tauro, 21 A D 2d 804, and cases therein cited). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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 injury, etc., the defendant A. J. Bell Co. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 20, 1964, as, in granting plaintiffs’ motion to settle a typewritten transcript of the stenographic minutes of the trial (for the purpose of an appeal to this court from a judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of the ease after a jury trial), authorized the abridgement of the transcript by omitting the medical testimony of the doctor. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs; plaintiffs’ motion insofar as it seeks such abridgement of the transcript denied; and transcript directed to be settled by including therein all the testimony adduced at the trial (see Ferry v. Tauro, 21 A D 2d 804, and cases therein cited). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 688, 253 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacovsky-v-proscero-nyappdiv-1964.