Smith v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. City of New York

5 A.D.3d 759, 773 N.Y.S.2d 571

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 759 (Smith v. City of New York) 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

Smith v. City of New York, 5 A.D.3d 759, 773 N.Y.S.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated April 25, 2003, which denied her motion for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (3).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a trial preference on the ground of her indigency (see CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; Hoyt v Kazel, 265 AD2d 527, 528 [1999]; Cenname v Lindholm, 69 AD2d 848, 849 [1979]). It is undisputed that the plaintiff is receiving public assistance, food stamps, and medical assistance due to her indigency. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s application for a trial preference should have been granted (see Hoyt v Kazel, supra). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated April 25, 2003, which denied her motion for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (3).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a trial preference on the ground of her indigency (see CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; Hoyt v Kazel, 265 AD2d 527, 528 [1999]; Cenname v Lindholm, 69 AD2d 848, 849 [1979]). It is undisputed that the plaintiff is receiving public assistance, food stamps, and medical assistance due to her indigency. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s application for a trial preference should have been granted (see Hoyt v Kazel, supra). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 759, 773 N.Y.S.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack