Long v. Savino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Long v. Savino

11 A.D.2d 1051, 206 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7757

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 1051 (Long v. Savino) 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

Long v. Savino, 11 A.D.2d 1051, 206 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of the collision of two motor vehicles, plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 19, 1960, denying her motion for a preference pursuant to rule 9 of the Queens County Supreme Court Rules; and (2) from an order of said court, entered June 9, 1960, denying her motion for reconsideration of her prior motion. The second motion, being based on additional facts and papers, was in effect a new motion. Order entered June 9, 1960, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and application for a preference pursuant to rule 9 of the Queens County Supreme Court Rules, granted. Order entered May 19, 1960, dismissed, without costs, as academic. Though we ordinarily are reluctant to disturb Special Term’s exercise of discretion in preference matters, it is our opinion that on the record in this ease, plaintiff should have been granted a preference under rule 9 (see Jacobs v. Milazzo, 9 A D 2d 950). Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur; Beldock, J., concurs in the dismissal of the appeal from the first order; but he dissents as to the reversal of the second order and as to the granting of the preference, and votes to affirm such order.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of the collision of two motor vehicles, plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 19, 1960, denying her motion for a preference pursuant to rule 9 of the Queens County Supreme Court Rules; and (2) from an order of said court, entered June 9, 1960, denying her motion for reconsideration of her prior motion. The second motion, being based on additional facts and papers, was in effect a new motion. Order entered June 9, 1960, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and application for a preference pursuant to rule 9 of the Queens County Supreme Court Rules, granted. Order entered May 19, 1960, dismissed, without costs, as academic. Though we ordinarily are reluctant to disturb Special Term’s exercise of discretion in preference matters, it is our opinion that on the record in this ease, plaintiff should have been granted a preference under rule 9 (see Jacobs v. Milazzo, 9 A D 2d 950). Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur; Beldock, J., concurs in the dismissal of the appeal from the first order; but he dissents as to the reversal of the second order and as to the granting of the preference, and votes to affirm such order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 1051, 206 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-savino-nyappdiv-1960.