Sheehan v. Behr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehan v. Behr

1 A.D.2d 1037, 152 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317

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

DecidedMay 21, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 1037 (Sheehan v. Behr) 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

Sheehan v. Behr, 1 A.D.2d 1037, 152 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, Edward Behr, one of the defendants in Action No. 1, appeals from order which, on reargument, granted a motion for a preference, pursuant to rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph everything following the word “ respects ” and by substituting therefor the word “ denied ”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Destitution and incapacity to work are insufficiently shown. (Farewell v. Milbank, 284 App. Div. 898; Svei v. Minck Bros. & Co., 279 App. Div. 597; Quinlan v. Schaefer Brewing Co., 279 App. Div. 805; O’Callaghan v. Brawley, 276 App. Div. 908.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, Edward Behr, one of the defendants in Action No. 1, appeals from order which, on reargument, granted a motion for a preference, pursuant to rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph everything following the word “ respects ” and by substituting therefor the word “ denied ”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Destitution and incapacity to work are insufficiently shown. (Farewell v. Milbank, 284 App. Div. 898; Svei v. Minck Bros. & Co., 279 App. Div. 597; Quinlan v. Schaefer Brewing Co., 279 App. Div. 805; O’Callaghan v. Brawley, 276 App. Div. 908.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 1037, 152 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-behr-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack