Ludlam v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ludlam v. Jones

131 A.D.2d 644, 516 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48107

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

DecidedJune 15, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.2d 644 (Ludlam v. Jones) 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

Ludlam v. Jones, 131 A.D.2d 644, 516 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an automobile negligence action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated November 5, 1986, which denied her motion for a preference of the trial on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision as to whether to direct an immediate trial where the only triable factual issue concerned damages was within the sound discretion of the trial court (CPLR 3212 [c]). Where, as here, there were still pending discovery proceedings and a pending motion to consolidate this action with another action—which motion has since been granted—the court’s refusal to grant a trial preference was not an abuse of discretion. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an automobile negligence action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated November 5, 1986, which denied her motion for a preference of the trial on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision as to whether to direct an immediate trial where the only triable factual issue concerned damages was within the sound discretion of the trial court (CPLR 3212 [c]). Where, as here, there were still pending discovery proceedings and a pending motion to consolidate this action with another action—which motion has since been granted—the court’s refusal to grant a trial preference was not an abuse of discretion. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 644, 516 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludlam-v-jones-nyappdiv-1987.