Kelly v. Triboro Coach Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelly v. Triboro Coach Corp.

25 A.D.2d 777, 270 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4488

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

DecidedApril 18, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 777 (Kelly v. Triboro Coach 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

Kelly v. Triboro Coach Corp., 25 A.D.2d 777, 270 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

-In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 22, 1964 as, on reconsideration, adhered to the court’s original decision denying the action a general preference in trial. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and general preference in trial directed to be accorded to this action. In our opinion, the jurisdictional monetary limitation of the Civil Court of the City of New York may preclude adequate recovery by plaintiff in that court. It was, therefore, an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the application.

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, 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, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 22, 1964 as, on reconsideration, adhered to the court’s original decision denying the action a general preference in trial. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and general preference in trial directed to be accorded to this action. In our opinion, the jurisdictional monetary limitation of the Civil Court of the City of New York may preclude adequate recovery by plaintiff in that court. It was, therefore, an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the application.

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 777, 270 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-triboro-coach-corp-nyappdiv-1966.