Shapiro v. Pincus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shapiro v. Pincus

34 A.D.2d 906, 311 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4569

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

DecidedJune 9, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 906 (Shapiro v. Pincus) 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

Shapiro v. Pincus, 34 A.D.2d 906, 311 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered February 6, 1970 unanimously reversed on the facts and the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and preference denied. Appeal from order entered March 2, 1970 dismissed as academic without costs and without disbursements. A trial preference was granted to plaintiff following a pretrial hearing on the ground that defendant failed to seek in good faith to adjust the case. We have repeatedly held that a preference can be granted only on a record made at the hearing which demonstrates the defendant’s intransigence {Wolff v. Láveme, Inc., 17 A D 2d 213). The recitals in the order do not constitute such a record. Moreover, even these do not indicate a failure to co-operate. Concur — Eager, J. P., Markewich, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered February 6, 1970 unanimously reversed on the facts and the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and preference denied. Appeal from order entered March 2, 1970 dismissed as academic without costs and without disbursements. A trial preference was granted to plaintiff following a pretrial hearing on the ground that defendant failed to seek in good faith to adjust the case. We have repeatedly held that a preference can be granted only on a record made at the hearing which demonstrates the defendant’s intransigence {Wolff v. Láveme, Inc., 17 A D 2d 213). The recitals in the order do not constitute such a record. Moreover, even these do not indicate a failure to co-operate. Concur — Eager, J. P., Markewich, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 906, 311 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapiro-v-pincus-nyappdiv-1970.