Karcinell v. Kinney Car Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karcinell v. Kinney Car Corp.

33 A.D.2d 900, 306 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5645

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 900 (Karcinell v. Kinney Car Corp.) 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

Karcinell v. Kinney Car Corp., 33 A.D.2d 900, 306 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on September 11, 1968, denying plaintiff’s motion for a general preference, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff, a certified public accountant, was injured in an automobile accident on November 19, 1966. He alleges that, amongst other injuries, he sustained an injury to his eye which has affected his sight. It cannot be said positively that the claimed injury to the eye of the plaintiff and the effect on his sight are without substance. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s doctor, submitted in support of the motion, asserts that the condition of the eye is related to the injuries the plaintiff sustained at the time of the accident and, further, that there may possibly be additional degenerative changes. Under the circumstances of this case no one can say with certainty that this case does not warrant compensation beyond the limit of the Civil Court’s monetary jurisdiction, especially in these days of inflation. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., MeGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, entered on September 11, 1968, denying plaintiff’s motion for a general preference, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff, a certified public accountant, was injured in an automobile accident on November 19, 1966. He alleges that, amongst other injuries, he sustained an injury to his eye which has affected his sight. It cannot be said positively that the claimed injury to the eye of the plaintiff and the effect on his sight are without substance. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s doctor, submitted in support of the motion, asserts that the condition of the eye is related to the injuries the plaintiff sustained at the time of the accident and, further, that there may possibly be additional degenerative changes. Under the circumstances of this case no one can say with certainty that this case does not warrant compensation beyond the limit of the Civil Court’s monetary jurisdiction, especially in these days of inflation. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., MeGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 900, 306 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karcinell-v-kinney-car-corp-nyappdiv-1970.