Waltner v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waltner v. Schwartz

3 A.D.2d 660, 159 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6580

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 660 (Waltner v. Schwartz) 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

Waltner v. Schwartz, 3 A.D.2d 660, 159 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered December 12, 1955, denying plaintiff’s motion for a preference, and order entered March 8, 1956, denying plaintiff’s motion for like relief, having become academic by virtue of the decision of this court in appeal [denying plaintiff’s motion for reargument], decided herewith, are dismissed. Order denying plaintiff's motion for reargument of prior motions for a preference herein unanimously reversed and the motion granted. While the severity and permanency of the injuries is doubtful, in the interest of justice, we think the doubt should be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. It should also be noted that plaintiff’s papers on the application for preference, in the first instance, were quite inadequate. Concur — Brietel, J. P., Rabin, Frank and Valente, JJ.

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

Order entered December 12, 1955, denying plaintiff’s motion for a preference, and order entered March 8, 1956, denying plaintiff’s motion for like relief, having become academic by virtue of the decision of this court in appeal [denying plaintiff’s motion for reargument], decided herewith, are dismissed. Order denying plaintiff's motion for reargument of prior motions for a preference herein unanimously reversed and the motion granted. While the severity and permanency of the injuries is doubtful, in the interest of justice, we think the doubt should be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. It should also be noted that plaintiff’s papers on the application for preference, in the first instance, were quite inadequate. Concur — Brietel, J. P., Rabin, Frank and Valente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 660, 159 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waltner-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1957.