Thomas v. Lenox 116 Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Lenox 116 Inc.

10 A.D.2d 842, 199 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10473

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

DecidedApril 26, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 842 (Thomas v. Lenox 116 Inc.) 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

Thomas v. Lenox 116 Inc., 10 A.D.2d 842, 199 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying a preference pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules is modified on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant leave to the plaintiff to make a new application for the same relief sought herein on new and additional medical proof, and, as modified, is otherwise affirmed, without costs. From the papers it appears that the last examination of the plaintiff by a medical expert occurred on June 6, 1957. It cannot, therefore, be determined whether the injuries claimed are permanent. If the plaintiff makes a new motion for a preference, a doctor’s affidavit based on a current examination and showing the nature and extent of the permanency claimed should be supplied, if that be the fact, for without such proof, the action does not warrant the preference sought. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order denying a preference pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules is modified on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant leave to the plaintiff to make a new application for the same relief sought herein on new and additional medical proof, and, as modified, is otherwise affirmed, without costs. From the papers it appears that the last examination of the plaintiff by a medical expert occurred on June 6, 1957. It cannot, therefore, be determined whether the injuries claimed are permanent. If the plaintiff makes a new motion for a preference, a doctor’s affidavit based on a current examination and showing the nature and extent of the permanency claimed should be supplied, if that be the fact, for without such proof, the action does not warrant the preference sought. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 842, 199 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-lenox-116-inc-nyappdiv-1960.