From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Svei v. Minck Bros. & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 8, 1951
279 App. Div. 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

October 8, 1951.


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for resultant expenses and loss of services, order granting plaintiffs' motion for a preference in trial reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, without costs. In our opinion there is no such showing of plaintiffs' indigence in the moving papers as warrants the preference in trial of this action over the many causes awaiting trial in regular order; and in granting the motion the court improvidently exercised the discretion vested in it. ( O'Callaghan v. Brawley, 276 App. Div. 908; Greene v. McDermott, 245 App. Div. 726; Lavicka v. National Transp. Co., 264 App. Div. 785; Thomas v. Green Bus Lines, 276 App. Div. 922; Braver v. Davis, 277 App. Div. 879.) Carswell, Acting P.J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Svei v. Minck Bros. & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 8, 1951
279 App. Div. 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

Svei v. Minck Bros. & Co.

Case Details

Full title:MOLLY SVEI et al., Respondents, v. MINCK BROS. CO. et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 8, 1951

Citations

279 App. Div. 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

Sheehan v. Behr

Destitution and incapacity to work are insufficiently shown. ( Farewell v. Milbank, 284 App. Div. 898; Svei…

Quinlan v. F. M. Schaefer Brewing Co.

There was no sufficient showing warranting the exercise of discretion in favor of granting the preference.…