Lash v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lash v. Board of Education

23 A.D.2d 570, 256 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4921

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 570 (Lash v. Board of Education) 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

Lash v. Board of Education, 23 A.D.2d 570, 256 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In [571]*571an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical expenses and loss of services, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made February 7,1964 on the court’s own motion, which denied a general preference in trial. Order reversed on the law and facts, with $20 costs and disbursements, and action remitted to the Calendar Classification and Control Term of the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. The order appealed from in effect revoked a general trial preference which had been previously granted by another Justice. The only support for the revocation appears in the statement by the Justice presiding at the Calendar Classification and Control Term (contained in Ms order) that: “ After visual examination there are no apparent residuals of any consequence ”. Such a statement does not satisfy the requirement for the making of a proper record evidencing new or additional facts as the b'asis for the revocation; we cannot review the Justice’s personal visual observations (Lee v. Lehrer, 3 A D 2d 702; see Blaney v. Sorensen, 8 A D 2d 938). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Babin, J'J., concur.

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

In [571]*571an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical expenses and loss of services, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made February 7,1964 on the court’s own motion, which denied a general preference in trial. Order reversed on the law and facts, with $20 costs and disbursements, and action remitted to the Calendar Classification and Control Term of the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. The order appealed from in effect revoked a general trial preference which had been previously granted by another Justice. The only support for the revocation appears in the statement by the Justice presiding at the Calendar Classification and Control Term (contained in Ms order) that: “ After visual examination there are no apparent residuals of any consequence ”. Such a statement does not satisfy the requirement for the making of a proper record evidencing new or additional facts as the b'asis for the revocation; we cannot review the Justice’s personal visual observations (Lee v. Lehrer, 3 A D 2d 702; see Blaney v. Sorensen, 8 A D 2d 938). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Babin, J'J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 570, 256 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lash-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1965.