Vinal v. New York Central Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Vinal v. New York Central Railroad

48 Misc. 2d 362, 264 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1335

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 18, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 48 Misc. 2d 362 (Vinal v. New York Central Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vinal v. New York Central Railroad, 48 Misc. 2d 362, 264 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1335 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Lawrence H. Cooke, J.

Plaintiff moves ‘ ‘ for a preference in the above entitled action, pursuant to Rule 3403 of the CPLR, Subdivision (A) 3 ”, it appearing that an order has been entered directing a separate prior trial of issues raised by the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations in the answer and issues of estoppel or waiver raised by the reply. No note of issue has been filed.

A preference will not be granted unless an action is noticed properly to be placed on the calendar (CPLR 3403; Moran v. Portchester Iron Works, 11 A D 2d 783; Friedman v. Friedman, 5 A D 2d 864; Roman v. Caputo, 278 App. Div. 327; Rea v. Horton, 241 App. Div. 742; Zimmerman v. Rahmeyer, 230 App. Div. 719; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3403.21; Wachtell, New York Practice Under the CPLR, p. 263).

Furthermore, in most counties of the State, including- Albany, a motion for a preference may be made only at Trial Term, not at Special Term (Brown v. Upfold, 204 Misc. 416; Wicks v. Wolcott, 200 Misc. 621; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3403.22; Supplementary Practice Commentary by Professor McLaughlin under CPLR 3403 in 1965 Pocket Part of Book 7B of McKinney’s Civil Practice Law and Rules; Carmody-Forkosch, New York Practice [8th ed.], p. 710; 6 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 265). Motion denied without prejudice to renewal when action properly noticed and at a proper term. Submit order.

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

Lawrence H. Cooke, J.

Plaintiff moves ‘ ‘ for a preference in the above entitled action, pursuant to Rule 3403 of the CPLR, Subdivision (A) 3 ”, it appearing that an order has been entered directing a separate prior trial of issues raised by the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations in the answer and issues of estoppel or waiver raised by the reply. No note of issue has been filed.

A preference will not be granted unless an action is noticed properly to be placed on the calendar (CPLR 3403; Moran v. Portchester Iron Works, 11 A D 2d 783; Friedman v. Friedman, 5 A D 2d 864; Roman v. Caputo, 278 App. Div. 327; Rea v. Horton, 241 App. Div. 742; Zimmerman v. Rahmeyer, 230 App. Div. 719; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3403.21; Wachtell, New York Practice Under the CPLR, p. 263).

Furthermore, in most counties of the State, including- Albany, a motion for a preference may be made only at Trial Term, not at Special Term (Brown v. Upfold, 204 Misc. 416; Wicks v. Wolcott, 200 Misc. 621; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3403.22; Supplementary Practice Commentary by Professor McLaughlin under CPLR 3403 in 1965 Pocket Part of Book 7B of McKinney’s Civil Practice Law and Rules; Carmody-Forkosch, New York Practice [8th ed.], p. 710; 6 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 265). Motion denied without prejudice to renewal when action properly noticed and at a proper term. Submit order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Misc. 2d 362, 264 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinal-v-new-york-central-railroad-nysupct-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack