Soto v. Maschler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soto v. Maschler

24 A.D.2d 893, 264 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2982

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 893 (Soto v. Maschler) 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

Soto v. Maschler, 24 A.D.2d 893, 264 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 17, 1964, as denied her motion for a special preference in trial. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs; motion for special preference granted; and action remitted to the Special Term for entry of an appropriate order. Plaintiff is 70 years old and, in the uncontroverted opinion of her physician, will not survive the waiting period caused by the calendar delay in Kings County. Under the facts, we are of the opinion that the desired preference should have been granted. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, 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, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 17, 1964, as denied her motion for a special preference in trial. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs; motion for special preference granted; and action remitted to the Special Term for entry of an appropriate order. Plaintiff is 70 years old and, in the uncontroverted opinion of her physician, will not survive the waiting period caused by the calendar delay in Kings County. Under the facts, we are of the opinion that the desired preference should have been granted. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 893, 264 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-maschler-nyappdiv-1965.