Utnicki v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Utnicki v. City of New York

285 A.D. 1069, 139 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6694

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

DecidedApril 11, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 A.D. 1069 (Utnicki 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

Utnicki v. City of New York, 285 A.D. 1069, 139 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

-In this action to recover damages for the wrongful death of respondent’s intestate, her late husband, and for his conscious pain and suffering, order granting respondent’s motion for a trial preference affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellant does not dispute respondent’s assertion that she and her young child have been depending upon neighbors and friends for clothing and food, and that she has no means, no income, no relatives who can assist her, and is unable to work because of the necessity for care of her child. This constitutes destitution, notwithstanding that respondent is not on relief. Therefore, the granting of the preference herein was a proper exercise of discretion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

-In this action to recover damages for the wrongful death of respondent’s intestate, her late husband, and for his conscious pain and suffering, order granting respondent’s motion for a trial preference affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellant does not dispute respondent’s assertion that she and her young child have been depending upon neighbors and friends for clothing and food, and that she has no means, no income, no relatives who can assist her, and is unable to work because of the necessity for care of her child. This constitutes destitution, notwithstanding that respondent is not on relief. Therefore, the granting of the preference herein was a proper exercise of discretion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1069, 139 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/utnicki-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack