From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valenti v. United Hoisting Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1942
265 App. Div. 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Summary

In Valenti v. United Hoisting Co. (265 A.D. 963) an order denying a preference was reversed on a showing of serious injuries which might cause loss of testimony, plaintiff's financial condition and other relevant factors justifying same.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Upfold

Opinion

December 22, 1942.


Order denying plaintiff's motion for a preference of the trial of this action to recover damages for personal injuries, allegedly resulting from defendants' negligence, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion granted, without costs, and the cause set for trial on the calendar of Trial Term, Part I, Kings County, for the first Monday of February, 1943. The serious injuries concededly suffered by the plaintiff which, it sufficiently appears, may result in the loss of his testimony on the trial, plaintiff's financial condition, and other relevant factors disclosed in the record, cause us to disagree with the learned Special Term justice in his exercise of discretion. This is a case in which a preference should be granted. Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Valenti v. United Hoisting Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1942
265 App. Div. 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

In Valenti v. United Hoisting Co. (265 A.D. 963) an order denying a preference was reversed on a showing of serious injuries which might cause loss of testimony, plaintiff's financial condition and other relevant factors justifying same.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Upfold

In Valenti v. United Hoisting Co. (265 App. Div. 963 [1942]) an order denying a preference was reversed on a showing of serious injuries which might cause loss of testimony, plaintiff's financial condition and other relevant factors justifying same. There seems to be a lack of decisions in the second department until 1950 when a different interpretation of the term, "destitution", is to me indicated.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Upfold
Case details for

Valenti v. United Hoisting Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SALVATORE VALENTI, Appellant, v. UNITED HOISTING CO., INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 22, 1942

Citations

265 App. Div. 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Citing Cases

Healy v. Healy

" "Destitute" is defined as "not possessing the necessaries of life; in a condition of extreme want; without…

Healy v. Healy

A few recent cases indicate the application of the rule: Where the showing of destitution is complete the…