Pollak v. Moundzroukas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pollak v. Moundzroukas

22 A.D.2d 884, 254 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2527

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 884 (Pollak v. Moundzroukas) 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

Pollak v. Moundzroukas, 22 A.D.2d 884, 254 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered March 23, 1964, herein appealed from, denying plaintiff’s application for a re-evaluation of the denial of a general preference and for the granting of a general preference, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event. On this record, in light of the nature and extent of the claimed injuries and the medical reports submitted in support thereof, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to warrant the granting of a preference (Williams v. Veer, 14 A D 2d 670; Leibowitz v. Rector, 13 A D 2d 734; Leary v. City of New York, 15 A D 2d 480). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered March 23, 1964, herein appealed from, denying plaintiff’s application for a re-evaluation of the denial of a general preference and for the granting of a general preference, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event. On this record, in light of the nature and extent of the claimed injuries and the medical reports submitted in support thereof, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to warrant the granting of a preference (Williams v. Veer, 14 A D 2d 670; Leibowitz v. Rector, 13 A D 2d 734; Leary v. City of New York, 15 A D 2d 480). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 884, 254 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollak-v-moundzroukas-nyappdiv-1964.