Massini v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Massini v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

26 A.D.2d 830, 273 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 830 (Massini v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad) 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

Massini v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 26 A.D.2d 830, 273 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia under the Federal [831]*831Employers’ Liability Act (U. S. Code, tit. 45, § 51 et seq.) to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 24, 1966, as, on reconsideration, adhered to the court’s prior decision denying a general preference in trial. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs; motion granted; and general preference in trial directed to be accorded to this action. In our opinion, the jurisdictional monetary limitation of the Civil Court of the City of New York may preclude adequate recovery by plaintiff in that court. It was, therefore, an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the application for a preference. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia under the Federal [831]*831Employers’ Liability Act (U. S. Code, tit. 45, § 51 et seq.) to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 24, 1966, as, on reconsideration, adhered to the court’s prior decision denying a general preference in trial. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs; motion granted; and general preference in trial directed to be accorded to this action. In our opinion, the jurisdictional monetary limitation of the Civil Court of the City of New York may preclude adequate recovery by plaintiff in that court. It was, therefore, an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the application for a preference. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 830, 273 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massini-v-new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-nyappdiv-1966.