From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meyers v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 1959
7 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Opinion

February 17, 1959


Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Under the circumstances of this case, Special Term appropriately exercised its discretion in denying this motion for a preference under rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The plaintiff delayed making this application for a preference under rule 151 for approximately nine months after issue was joined. The papers do not include an affidavit by the plaintiff and no showing of a meritorious cause of action is made. As we have heretofore stated, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the right to a preference under the rule, and the application may not be lightly granted (see Dodumoff v. Lyons, 4 A.D.2d 626).

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, M.M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.


Summaries of

Meyers v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 1959
7 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)
Case details for

Meyers v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:GERTRUDE MEYERS, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 17, 1959

Citations

7 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Citing Cases

Addison v. Hall

Where the application is not timely made in accordance with the prescription of the statute, an explanation…

Smyth v. Dow Realty

Under similar rules where the application was not timely made in accordance with the prescription of the rule…