Smith v. Horn Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Horn Construction Co.

12 A.D.2d 739, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13390

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.2d 739 (Smith v. Horn Construction Co.) 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. Horn Construction Co., 12 A.D.2d 739, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 20, 1960, granting plaintiff a trial preference pursuant to rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously reversed upon the law and upon the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied without prejudice to renewal of motion upon proper proofs. The plaintiff on this motion has failed to submit proper medical proof showing his present physical condition or inability to work, has failed to submit complete factual detail showing destitution or indigence, and has failed in general to present unequivocal proof of the special circumstances required to warrant the granting of a preference under said rule 151. (See Dodumoff v. Lyons, 4 A D 2d 626; Goldin v. Malone Dairy Co., 209 App. Div. 341, 342; Bitterman v. 2007 Davidson Ave., 278 App. Div. 759; Sheehan v. Behr, 1 AD 2d 1037; Brown v. Upfold, 204 Misc. 416, 419.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 20, 1960, granting plaintiff a trial preference pursuant to rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously reversed upon the law and upon the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied without prejudice to renewal of motion upon proper proofs. The plaintiff on this motion has failed to submit proper medical proof showing his present physical condition or inability to work, has failed to submit complete factual detail showing destitution or indigence, and has failed in general to present unequivocal proof of the special circumstances required to warrant the granting of a preference under said rule 151. (See Dodumoff v. Lyons, 4 A D 2d 626; Goldin v. Malone Dairy Co., 209 App. Div. 341, 342; Bitterman v. 2007 Davidson Ave., 278 App. Div. 759; Sheehan v. Behr, 1 AD 2d 1037; Brown v. Upfold, 204 Misc. 416, 419.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 739, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-horn-construction-co-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack