Karelas v. Mansion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karelas v. Mansion

34 A.D.2d 541, 309 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5406

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 541 (Karelas v. Mansion) 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

Karelas v. Mansion, 34 A.D.2d 541, 309 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 16, 1969, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to remove the action to that court from the Civil Court of the City of New York upon certain conditions. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding to the first decretal paragraph thereof a provision that the granting of the motion is further conditioned upon the injured plaintiff’s submitting to a physical examination if such examination is requested by defendant Halberian. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the further condition above mentioned should have been included in the order granting plaintiffs’ motion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, 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 injuries, etc., the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 16, 1969, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to remove the action to that court from the Civil Court of the City of New York upon certain conditions. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding to the first decretal paragraph thereof a provision that the granting of the motion is further conditioned upon the injured plaintiff’s submitting to a physical examination if such examination is requested by defendant Halberian. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the further condition above mentioned should have been included in the order granting plaintiffs’ motion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 541, 309 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karelas-v-mansion-nyappdiv-1970.