Marrone v. Pathmark Supermarket

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marrone v. Pathmark Supermarket

81 A.D.2d 858, 441 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538

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

DecidedMay 11, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 858 (Marrone v. Pathmark Supermarket) 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

Marrone v. Pathmark Supermarket, 81 A.D.2d 858, 441 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 15, 1980, which denied her a general preference and transferred the action to the Civil Court. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and a general preference is granted. The action is to be tried in the Supreme Court. Considering the nature and extent of the injuries claimed to have resulted from the accident, and the amount of special damages alleged to have been sustained, a general preference, in the proper exercise of discretion, should have been granted. (See Watts v Andion, 69 AD2d 901; Coletto v Keogh, 44 AD2d 712; Phillips v Beechcraft Apts., Section No. 1 Corp., 36 AD2d 729; Palescandolo v Mangione, 33 AD2d 781; Liebowitz v Rector, Churchwardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church of City of N.Y., 13 AD2d 734.) Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Margett and Weinstein, 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 15, 1980, which denied her a general preference and transferred the action to the Civil Court. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and a general preference is granted. The action is to be tried in the Supreme Court. Considering the nature and extent of the injuries claimed to have resulted from the accident, and the amount of special damages alleged to have been sustained, a general preference, in the proper exercise of discretion, should have been granted. (See Watts v Andion, 69 AD2d 901; Coletto v Keogh, 44 AD2d 712; Phillips v Beechcraft Apts., Section No. 1 Corp., 36 AD2d 729; Palescandolo v Mangione, 33 AD2d 781; Liebowitz v Rector, Churchwardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church of City of N.Y., 13 AD2d 734.) Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 858, 441 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marrone-v-pathmark-supermarket-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack