Pagliocca v. M. Grossman Lumber Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pagliocca v. M. Grossman Lumber Corp.

29 A.D.2d 520, 285 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2791

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 520 (Pagliocca v. M. Grossman Lumber Corp.) 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

Pagliocca v. M. Grossman Lumber Corp., 29 A.D.2d 520, 285 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered June 15, 1967, granting plaintiff a preference for trial in the interest of justice pursuant to CPLR 3403 and rule IX of the Rules of the Supreme Court, New York and Bronx Counties, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant. The representation of the plaintiff that unless he is granted a preference he cannot soon become economically self-sufficient and may become a public charge is scarcely compliance with the requirements hitherto exacted. Nor is there here present a current medical affidavit with respect to the plaintiff’s present physical condition, nor an affidavit of merit. In our view on this record the grant of a preference was an improvident exercise of discretion. (See Lucas v. Gorey, 26 A D 2d 557.) Concur — 'Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, McGivern and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order entered June 15, 1967, granting plaintiff a preference for trial in the interest of justice pursuant to CPLR 3403 and rule IX of the Rules of the Supreme Court, New York and Bronx Counties, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant. The representation of the plaintiff that unless he is granted a preference he cannot soon become economically self-sufficient and may become a public charge is scarcely compliance with the requirements hitherto exacted. Nor is there here present a current medical affidavit with respect to the plaintiff’s present physical condition, nor an affidavit of merit. In our view on this record the grant of a preference was an improvident exercise of discretion. (See Lucas v. Gorey, 26 A D 2d 557.) Concur — 'Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, McGivern and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 520, 285 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagliocca-v-m-grossman-lumber-corp-nyappdiv-1967.