Weinstein v. Valukis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstein v. Valukis

8 A.D.2d 748, 188 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8472

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

DecidedMay 25, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 748 (Weinstein v. Valukis) 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

Weinstein v. Valukis, 8 A.D.2d 748, 188 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from so much of an order granting reconsideration of an application for a preference pursuant to rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules as on reconsideration adhered to the original decision denying the application. Order modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph the words “ the original decision is adhered to denying the said application for” and by adding at the end of said paragraph the words “is granted”. As so modified, order insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. In view of the verified bill of particulars, the affidavits of four physicians and the medical certificates of physicians in support of the application, and the nature of the medical certificate of a physician in opposition to the application, on reconsideration the application for a preference under rule 9 should have been granted (see, e.g., Hocherman v. I. & G. Service Corp., 5 A D 2d 813). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur; Beldoek, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from without modification.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from so much of an order granting reconsideration of an application for a preference pursuant to rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules as on reconsideration adhered to the original decision denying the application. Order modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph the words “ the original decision is adhered to denying the said application for” and by adding at the end of said paragraph the words “is granted”. As so modified, order insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. In view of the verified bill of particulars, the affidavits of four physicians and the medical certificates of physicians in support of the application, and the nature of the medical certificate of a physician in opposition to the application, on reconsideration the application for a preference under rule 9 should have been granted (see, e.g., Hocherman v. I. & G. Service Corp., 5 A D 2d 813). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur; Beldoek, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from without modification.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 748, 188 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstein-v-valukis-nyappdiv-1959.