Konig v. Millard Shroder, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Konig v. Millard Shroder, Inc.

17 A.D.2d 831, 233 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7839

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 831 (Konig v. Millard Shroder, Inc.) 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

Konig v. Millard Shroder, Inc., 17 A.D.2d 831, 233 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff was struck on the head by a falling brick, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 10, 1962, which denied his motion for reconsideration of an earlier application which resulted in denial of his application for a preference pursuant to rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The present motion, while characterized by plaintiff as one for “reconsideration,” actually was a new motion based upon new facts and additional papers. An order which denies such a motion is appealable (cf. Sorkin v. County of Nassau, 16 A D 2d 837). On the basis of the medical proof submitted the Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying the preference (cf. Groeger v. Mifleb Realty Corp., 9 A D 2d 684; Cunningham v. Malbin, 8 A D 2d 949). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin 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 injuries sustained when plaintiff was struck on the head by a falling brick, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 10, 1962, which denied his motion for reconsideration of an earlier application which resulted in denial of his application for a preference pursuant to rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The present motion, while characterized by plaintiff as one for “reconsideration,” actually was a new motion based upon new facts and additional papers. An order which denies such a motion is appealable (cf. Sorkin v. County of Nassau, 16 A D 2d 837). On the basis of the medical proof submitted the Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying the preference (cf. Groeger v. Mifleb Realty Corp., 9 A D 2d 684; Cunningham v. Malbin, 8 A D 2d 949). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 831, 233 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/konig-v-millard-shroder-inc-nyappdiv-1962.