Rodman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodman v. City of New York

285 A.D. 1166, 140 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7027

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

DecidedMay 9, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1166 (Rodman v. City of New York) 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

Rodman v. City of New York, 285 A.D. 1166, 140 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, order granting plaintiff’s motion for a preference and setting the case down for a day certain for trial reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without costs. The injuries were sustained by plaintiff while engaged as a laborer in demolition work in a building. Although defendant, the City of New York, then owned the land upon which the structure stood, the State of New York owned the edifice and had contracted with plaintiff’s employer for its demolition. Some time after [1167]*1167joinder of issue herein, plaintiff filed a claim against the State in the Court of Claims for his injuries, which is still pending. Under these circumstances, the granting of a preference was an improvident exercise of discretion. MacCrate, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, 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, order granting plaintiff’s motion for a preference and setting the case down for a day certain for trial reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without costs. The injuries were sustained by plaintiff while engaged as a laborer in demolition work in a building. Although defendant, the City of New York, then owned the land upon which the structure stood, the State of New York owned the edifice and had contracted with plaintiff’s employer for its demolition. Some time after [1167]*1167joinder of issue herein, plaintiff filed a claim against the State in the Court of Claims for his injuries, which is still pending. Under these circumstances, the granting of a preference was an improvident exercise of discretion. MacCrate, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1166, 140 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1955.