Mercurio v. Kesler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mercurio v. Kesler

12 A.D.2d 959, 210 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12763

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.2d 959 (Mercurio v. Kesler) 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

Mercurio v. Kesler, 12 A.D.2d 959, 210 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 16, 1959 (and described as “entered on or about January 10, 1959”), denying a preference under rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules; and (2) from so much of an order of said court, dated April 12, 1960, made on reargument, as adhered to the original decision denying the preference. Order, dated April 12, 1960, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, dated January 16, 1959, dismissed. This order was superseded by the later order granting reargument. In our opinion, on the record presented, there was no abuse of discretion at Special Term in denying the preference. Rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules is not unconstitutional as asserted by plaintiffs (cf. Plachte v. Bancroft, Inc., 3 A D 2d 437). Nor have plaintiffs demonstrated on the record presented that they have been deprived of any constitutional right by the manner in which the rule has been administered. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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, plaintiffs appeal: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 16, 1959 (and described as “entered on or about January 10, 1959”), denying a preference under rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules; and (2) from so much of an order of said court, dated April 12, 1960, made on reargument, as adhered to the original decision denying the preference. Order, dated April 12, 1960, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, dated January 16, 1959, dismissed. This order was superseded by the later order granting reargument. In our opinion, on the record presented, there was no abuse of discretion at Special Term in denying the preference. Rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules is not unconstitutional as asserted by plaintiffs (cf. Plachte v. Bancroft, Inc., 3 A D 2d 437). Nor have plaintiffs demonstrated on the record presented that they have been deprived of any constitutional right by the manner in which the rule has been administered. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 959, 210 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercurio-v-kesler-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack