Miller v. A Cleaning Contractors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. A Cleaning Contractors

42 A.D.2d 910, 347 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3542

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 910 (Miller v. A Cleaning Contractors) 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

Miller v. A Cleaning Contractors, 42 A.D.2d 910, 347 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 17, 1973, as, upon reconsideration, adhered to the original decision denying their motion fdr a general preference. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements against defendant, A Cleaning Contractors, and motion for a general preference granted. The injured plaintiff sustained injuries to his left shoulder and elbow, including a fracture of the humerus. Uncontroverted medical data indicate a permanent 12%% loss of use of the left arm; and, in addition, a loss of earnings of $3,120 is claimed. In our opinion, the fiscal loss and the nature and extent of the disability and functional loss claimed could, reasonably warrant an evaluation in excess of the monetary jurisdiction of the Civil Court of the City of New York (Phillips v. Beechcraft Apts., Sect. No. 1 Oorp., 36 A D 2d 729). Accordingly, a general preference should have been granted. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, 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, etc., plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 17, 1973, as, upon reconsideration, adhered to the original decision denying their motion fdr a general preference. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements against defendant, A Cleaning Contractors, and motion for a general preference granted. The injured plaintiff sustained injuries to his left shoulder and elbow, including a fracture of the humerus. Uncontroverted medical data indicate a permanent 12%% loss of use of the left arm; and, in addition, a loss of earnings of $3,120 is claimed. In our opinion, the fiscal loss and the nature and extent of the disability and functional loss claimed could, reasonably warrant an evaluation in excess of the monetary jurisdiction of the Civil Court of the City of New York (Phillips v. Beechcraft Apts., Sect. No. 1 Oorp., 36 A D 2d 729). Accordingly, a general preference should have been granted. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ,, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 910, 347 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-a-cleaning-contractors-nyappdiv-1973.