Rose v. Blitman Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rose v. Blitman Construction Corp.

17 A.D.2d 834, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7854

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 834 (Rose v. Blitman Construction 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

Rose v. Blitman Construction Corp., 17 A.D.2d 834, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 14, 1960, which denied his application for a preference under rule 9 of the Queens County Supreme Court Rules; and (2) from so much of an order of said court, dated September 18, 1961, made on reargument, as adhered to the original decision and denied the preference. Order dated September 18,1961, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the record fails to establish any abuse of discretion in denying the preference. Appeal from order, dated December 14, 1960, dismissed. That order was superseded by the later order granting reargument. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin 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 injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 14, 1960, which denied his application for a preference under rule 9 of the Queens County Supreme Court Rules; and (2) from so much of an order of said court, dated September 18, 1961, made on reargument, as adhered to the original decision and denied the preference. Order dated September 18,1961, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the record fails to establish any abuse of discretion in denying the preference. Appeal from order, dated December 14, 1960, dismissed. That order was superseded by the later order granting reargument. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 834, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-blitman-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1962.