La Macchia v. Gross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

La Macchia v. Gross

29 A.D.2d 677, 287 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4803

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 677 (La Macchia v. Gross) 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

La Macchia v. Gross, 29 A.D.2d 677, 287 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 14, 1967, which, after a pretrial hearing, directed that the action be preferred for trial, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of said court, reversed and preference vacated, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion the record does not contain convincing or sufficient evidence to show that defendants, at the pretrial conference, acted arbitrarily and not in good faith with respect to settlement of the action (Marcus v. Schwartz, 26 A D 2d 943; Paul v. Greyhound Bus Corp., 25 A D 2d 527; Stashin v. City of New York, 22 A D 2d 685; Wuest v. Redhill Associates, 20 A D 2d 818; Lee v. Dunkley, 28 A D 2d 996; Wolff v. Laverne, Inc., 17 A D 2d 213). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 14, 1967, which, after a pretrial hearing, directed that the action be preferred for trial, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of said court, reversed and preference vacated, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion the record does not contain convincing or sufficient evidence to show that defendants, at the pretrial conference, acted arbitrarily and not in good faith with respect to settlement of the action (Marcus v. Schwartz, 26 A D 2d 943; Paul v. Greyhound Bus Corp., 25 A D 2d 527; Stashin v. City of New York, 22 A D 2d 685; Wuest v. Redhill Associates, 20 A D 2d 818; Lee v. Dunkley, 28 A D 2d 996; Wolff v. Laverne, Inc., 17 A D 2d 213). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 677, 287 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/la-macchia-v-gross-nyappdiv-1968.