Meyers v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyers v. City of New York

7 A.D.2d 903, 182 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9893

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 903 (Meyers v. City of New York) 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

Meyers v. City of New York, 7 A.D.2d 903, 182 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Under the circumstances of this case, Special Term appropriately exercised its discretion in denying this motion for a preference under rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The plaintiff delayed making this application for a preference under rule 151 for approximately nine months after issue was joined. The papers do not include an affidavit by the plaintiff and no showing of a meritorious cause of action is made. As we have heretofore stated, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the right to a preference under the rule, and the application may not be lightly granted (see Dodumoff v. Lyons, 4 A D 2d 626). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Under the circumstances of this case, Special Term appropriately exercised its discretion in denying this motion for a preference under rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The plaintiff delayed making this application for a preference under rule 151 for approximately nine months after issue was joined. The papers do not include an affidavit by the plaintiff and no showing of a meritorious cause of action is made. As we have heretofore stated, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the right to a preference under the rule, and the application may not be lightly granted (see Dodumoff v. Lyons, 4 A D 2d 626). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 903, 182 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyers-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack