Vim v. Loewi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vim v. Loewi

23 A.D.2d 580, 256 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4896

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 580 (Vim v. Loewi) 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

Vim v. Loewi, 23 A.D.2d 580, 256 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff Trachtman appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made August 10, 1964 upon reargument, which adhered to the court’s original decision and denied said plaintiff’s application for a general preference in trial pursuant to court rules. Order, insofar as it denies the plaintiff Traehtman’s motion for a preference, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements payable by the respondents jointly; motion granted; [581]*581and general preference in trial directed to be accorded to this action. In our opinion, under all the facts and circumstances disclosed, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the preference. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, 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 injury, plaintiff Trachtman appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made August 10, 1964 upon reargument, which adhered to the court’s original decision and denied said plaintiff’s application for a general preference in trial pursuant to court rules. Order, insofar as it denies the plaintiff Traehtman’s motion for a preference, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements payable by the respondents jointly; motion granted; [581]*581and general preference in trial directed to be accorded to this action. In our opinion, under all the facts and circumstances disclosed, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the preference. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 580, 256 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vim-v-loewi-nyappdiv-1965.