Rothberg v. Justus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rothberg v. Justus

31 A.D.2d 845, 298 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4539

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 845 (Rothberg v. Justus) 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

Rothberg v. Justus, 31 A.D.2d 845, 298 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, loss of services, etc,, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much [846]*846of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 16, 1967, as, on reconsideration, adhered to a decision denying a general preference. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements against respondents jointly, and general preference granted. In our opinion the claimed injuries, if established, would support a verdict in excess of $10,000. Defendants submitted no medical proof contradicting that of plaintiffs, even though they had had a physical examination of the injured plaintiff. On such record, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny a general preference (Pass v. D’Andrea, 30 A D 2d 841) and to ignore said plaintiff’s offer to submit to an examination by an impartial, court-appointed doctor. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, loss of services, etc,, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much [846]*846of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 16, 1967, as, on reconsideration, adhered to a decision denying a general preference. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements against respondents jointly, and general preference granted. In our opinion the claimed injuries, if established, would support a verdict in excess of $10,000. Defendants submitted no medical proof contradicting that of plaintiffs, even though they had had a physical examination of the injured plaintiff. On such record, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny a general preference (Pass v. D’Andrea, 30 A D 2d 841) and to ignore said plaintiff’s offer to submit to an examination by an impartial, court-appointed doctor. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 845, 298 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothberg-v-justus-nyappdiv-1969.