Perchick v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perchick v. New York City Housing Authority

8 A.D.2d 619, 185 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9329

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

DecidedApril 6, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 619 (Perchick v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Perchick v. New York City Housing Authority, 8 A.D.2d 619, 185 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeals are (1) from an order denying appellant’s motion for a preference (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 151) on the ground that an immediate trial is necessary because of appellant’s age and condition, and (2) from an order granting the motion of respondent New York City Housing Authority to strike the case from the calendar on the grounds that appellant failed to furnish a hospital authorization and failed to arrange for her physical examination by said respondent, although due demand had been made for such authorization and such examination. Orders affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Murphy, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, 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, the appeals are (1) from an order denying appellant’s motion for a preference (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 151) on the ground that an immediate trial is necessary because of appellant’s age and condition, and (2) from an order granting the motion of respondent New York City Housing Authority to strike the case from the calendar on the grounds that appellant failed to furnish a hospital authorization and failed to arrange for her physical examination by said respondent, although due demand had been made for such authorization and such examination. Orders affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Murphy, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 619, 185 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perchick-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1959.