Sulahian v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sulahian v. City of New York

19 A.D.2d 522, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3775

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

DecidedMay 14, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 522 (Sulahian 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

Sulahian v. City of New York, 19 A.D.2d 522, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, entered on February 6, 1963, denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of an order revoking her preference on the Trial Calendar under former subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, now Special Rule of the Appellate Division, First Department, regulating the granting of preferences in actions for personal injuries, effective March 1, 1962, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted. To penalize plaintiff by revoking a preference theretofore granted following her failure to accept an offer consequent on a pretrial exploration of the possibility of settlement constitutes a gross abuse of discretion. (Wolff v. Láveme, Inc., 17 A D 2d 213.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

— Order, entered on February 6, 1963, denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of an order revoking her preference on the Trial Calendar under former subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, now Special Rule of the Appellate Division, First Department, regulating the granting of preferences in actions for personal injuries, effective March 1, 1962, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted. To penalize plaintiff by revoking a preference theretofore granted following her failure to accept an offer consequent on a pretrial exploration of the possibility of settlement constitutes a gross abuse of discretion. (Wolff v. Láveme, Inc., 17 A D 2d 213.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 522, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sulahian-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1963.