Poss v. Hotel Murida, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Poss v. Hotel Murida, Inc.

6 A.D.2d 1031

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 1031 (Poss v. Hotel Murida, Inc.) 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

Poss v. Hotel Murida, Inc., 6 A.D.2d 1031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

There is sufficient in the application of the plaintiff for a general preference under subdivision 5 of rule IY of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, to raise an issue as to the causal connection between the accident and the detachment of the retina of the left eye, as indicated by the doctor’s affidavit. We cannot decide that issue on the affidavits submitted in support of the application for a preference under the rule. If in fact there is a detached retina which was caused by the accident plaintiff is entitled to a trial in the Supreme Court. In the circumstances the order appealed from is reversed, and the application for a general preference under rule IY is granted, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants. Concur—Rabin, J. P., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

There is sufficient in the application of the plaintiff for a general preference under subdivision 5 of rule IY of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, to raise an issue as to the causal connection between the accident and the detachment of the retina of the left eye, as indicated by the doctor’s affidavit. We cannot decide that issue on the affidavits submitted in support of the application for a preference under the rule. If in fact there is a detached retina which was caused by the accident plaintiff is entitled to a trial in the Supreme Court. In the circumstances the order appealed from is reversed, and the application for a general preference under rule IY is granted, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants. Concur—Rabin, J. P., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poss-v-hotel-murida-inc-nyappdiv-1958.