From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

COHEN v. GREAT A. P. TEA CO

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
May 23, 1963
39 Misc. 2d 769 (N.Y. App. Term 1963)

Opinion

May 23, 1963

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens, MEYER TOBIAS, J., ANGELO GRACI, J.

Weisman, Celler, Allan, Spett Sheinberg ( Emanuel Haber and Lester Samuels of counsel), for appellant.

Spero Charnin ( David R. Weisman of counsel), for respondent.


Appeal from order dated March 4, 1963 affirmed, with $10 costs and taxable disbursements. No opinion.

Appeal from order dated February 15, 1963 dismissed, without costs, as academic. The latter order was superseded by the order granting reargument.


Concur — BROWN and BENJAMIN, JJ.; HART, J., concurs in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.


While I agree with the affirmance of the order granting this 75-year-old plaintiff, who is suffering from "senile debility" a preference in the trial of her action I would squarely place the affirmance on the sole ground of plaintiff's age. As I noted in Bernstein v. Strammiello ( 202 Misc. 823), the sole criterion prescribed by subdivision 3 of rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice for the granting of a preference is "that the interests of justice * * * be served by an early trial". It is universally recognized that after "three score and ten" the life expectancy of a party is greatly reduced and the ability to testify with clarity impaired. Judicial notice should be taken of the effect years after 75 have on the memory of a witness.

It is my view, therefore, that litigants aged 75 years or over should be automatically granted a preference in the trial of an action without a showing that they are not likely to survive until the trial of their actions for personal injuries is reached. As I observed in Blank v. Medical Arts Center Hosp. ( 34 Misc.2d 168, 170): "In the opinion of this court the interests of justice require that the plaintiffs in such cases should have available to their own personal use, comfort and benefit the avails of their causes of action for the relatively short time left to them in life instead of having the funds become exclusively portions of the corpus of their estates for the benefit of their next of kin."


Summaries of

COHEN v. GREAT A. P. TEA CO

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
May 23, 1963
39 Misc. 2d 769 (N.Y. App. Term 1963)
Case details for

COHEN v. GREAT A. P. TEA CO

Case Details

Full title:BRIDE COHEN, Respondent, v. GREAT ATLANTIC PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: May 23, 1963

Citations

39 Misc. 2d 769 (N.Y. App. Term 1963)
241 N.Y.S.2d 882