Richter v. Brookboro Building Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richter v. Brookboro Building Management Corp.

25 A.D.2d 448, 266 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5108

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 448 (Richter v. Brookboro Building Management 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

Richter v. Brookboro Building Management Corp., 25 A.D.2d 448, 266 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 24, 1964, which denied her application to reconsider a previous denial of her application for a general preference in trial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Although the order appealed from denies plaintiff’s application for reconsideration, it was actually based on additional facts (report of court-appointed physician). As such it is appealable (Polito v. Town of Babylon, 5 A D 2d 877). In our opinion, on the record presented, there was no abuse of discretion at Special Term in denying the preference. Neither has the plaintiff demonstrated on the record presented that she has been deprived of any constitutional right by the manner in which the rule has been administered (Mercurio v. Kesler, 12 A D 2d 959).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, 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 injury, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 24, 1964, which denied her application to reconsider a previous denial of her application for a general preference in trial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Although the order appealed from denies plaintiff’s application for reconsideration, it was actually based on additional facts (report of court-appointed physician). As such it is appealable (Polito v. Town of Babylon, 5 A D 2d 877). In our opinion, on the record presented, there was no abuse of discretion at Special Term in denying the preference. Neither has the plaintiff demonstrated on the record presented that she has been deprived of any constitutional right by the manner in which the rule has been administered (Mercurio v. Kesler, 12 A D 2d 959).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 448, 266 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richter-v-brookboro-building-management-corp-nyappdiv-1966.