Sands v. Mueller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sands v. Mueller

3 A.D.2d 821, 160 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5920

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

DecidedApril 9, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 821 (Sands v. Mueller) 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

Sands v. Mueller, 3 A.D.2d 821, 160 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In a recent ease (Lee v. LeJirer, 3 A D 2d 702), we held that a Justice presiding in the pretrial part of the court has the power to revoke a preference previously granted, provided however that there be placed in the record a statement by the Justice setting forth the facts and his reasons for so doing. The required statement is here lacking, but apart from that we do not think on the facts shown the preference should have been revoked. The record shows a claim by plaintiff of serious injuries, confinement to a hospital on three different occasions for a total of 40 days, and substantial medical and hospital expenses, as well as loss of earnings. If plaintiff is entitled to recover on the basis of these claims, it cannot be said that the case does not belong in this court. Of course, plaintiff should not lose his right to a preference merely because he refuses to waive a jury or consent to a settlement which he deems inadequate. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the motion granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Rabin, Yalente and McNally, JJ.

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

In a recent ease (Lee v. LeJirer, 3 A D 2d 702), we held that a Justice presiding in the pretrial part of the court has the power to revoke a preference previously granted, provided however that there be placed in the record a statement by the Justice setting forth the facts and his reasons for so doing. The required statement is here lacking, but apart from that we do not think on the facts shown the preference should have been revoked. The record shows a claim by plaintiff of serious injuries, confinement to a hospital on three different occasions for a total of 40 days, and substantial medical and hospital expenses, as well as loss of earnings. If plaintiff is entitled to recover on the basis of these claims, it cannot be said that the case does not belong in this court. Of course, plaintiff should not lose his right to a preference merely because he refuses to waive a jury or consent to a settlement which he deems inadequate. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the motion granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Rabin, Yalente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 821, 160 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sands-v-mueller-nyappdiv-1957.