Molat v. Singletary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Molat v. Singletary

32 A.D.2d 544, 300 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4248

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

DecidedApril 14, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 544 (Molat v. Singletary) 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

Molat v. Singletary, 32 A.D.2d 544, 300 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 2, 1968 and made after a pretrial hearing, which directed that the action be preferred for .trial pursuant to rule 8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County (22 NYCRR 750.8), and pursuant to CPLR 3403 (subd. [a], par. 3). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and without prejudice to any future application for a preference. The record before us does not contain either a stenographic transcript of the record of the pretrial hearing or a proper factual basis for an order granting a trial preference (John v. Sackette Elec. Co., 28 A D 2d 1128; Abramson v. Kenwood Labs., 17 A D 2d 626). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, 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 and property injuries, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 2, 1968 and made after a pretrial hearing, which directed that the action be preferred for .trial pursuant to rule 8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County (22 NYCRR 750.8), and pursuant to CPLR 3403 (subd. [a], par. 3). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and without prejudice to any future application for a preference. The record before us does not contain either a stenographic transcript of the record of the pretrial hearing or a proper factual basis for an order granting a trial preference (John v. Sackette Elec. Co., 28 A D 2d 1128; Abramson v. Kenwood Labs., 17 A D 2d 626). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 544, 300 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molat-v-singletary-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack