Watts v. Andion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watts v. Andion

69 A.D.2d 901, 416 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11652

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

DecidedApril 30, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.2d 901 (Watts v. Andion) 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

Watts v. Andion, 69 A.D.2d 901, 416 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 30, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s original determination denying his motion for a general preference. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and, upon reargument, motion for a general preference granted. Where, as here, “the injuries, prima facie established by medical proof, might warrant a recovery in excess of’ $10,000, the jurisdictional limitation of the Civil Court of the City of New York, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny a general preference (see Coletto v Keogh, 44 AD2d 712). Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 30, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s original determination denying his motion for a general preference. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and, upon reargument, motion for a general preference granted. Where, as here, “the injuries, prima facie established by medical proof, might warrant a recovery in excess of’ $10,000, the jurisdictional limitation of the Civil Court of the City of New York, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny a general preference (see Coletto v Keogh, 44 AD2d 712). Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 901, 416 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-andion-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack