Turturro v. Stevens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turturro v. Stevens

58 A.D.2d 601, 395 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12647

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

DecidedJune 13, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 601 (Turturro v. Stevens) 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

Turturro v. Stevens, 58 A.D.2d 601, 395 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 28, 1977, which granted plaintiffs’ application for a special preference. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and application for a special preference denied. The court abused its discretion in granting the special preference. A clear case of liability does not entitle a plaintiff to have his or her action preferred for trial over the other actions on the calendar. The remedy in such a situation is a motion for summary judgment (see Binninger v Grillo, 28 AD2d 1100). A court cannot make a finding of bad faith under CPLR 3403 simply because it disagrees with the amount which the defendant has offered for settlement (Oaklander v Sodikoff Contr. Co., 35 AD2d 960). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Margett and O’Connor, 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, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 28, 1977, which granted plaintiffs’ application for a special preference. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and application for a special preference denied. The court abused its discretion in granting the special preference. A clear case of liability does not entitle a plaintiff to have his or her action preferred for trial over the other actions on the calendar. The remedy in such a situation is a motion for summary judgment (see Binninger v Grillo, 28 AD2d 1100). A court cannot make a finding of bad faith under CPLR 3403 simply because it disagrees with the amount which the defendant has offered for settlement (Oaklander v Sodikoff Contr. Co., 35 AD2d 960). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 601, 395 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turturro-v-stevens-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack