From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amato v. Pultman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1981
79 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

January 26, 1981


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., in which plaintiff had previously been granted a general preference, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 23, 1980, which transferred the action to the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, pursuant to CPLR 325 (subd [d]). Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and preference reinstated. No record was made at the pretrial conference of the facts upon which the Justice presiding relied in transferring the action to the Civil Court (thereby necessarily revoking the preference); nor did he make any statement as to his reasons for such revocation (see Blaney v. Sorensen, 8 A.D.2d 938; Lee v Lehrer, 3 A.D.2d 702). In the absence of satisfactory facts and a proper record of the considerations which impelled the revoking of the preference, the determination cannot be upheld (see Ivory v. Widaben Realty Corp., 5 A.D.2d 266, 268). Damiani, J.P., Gibbons, Rabin and Thompson, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Amato v. Pultman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1981
79 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Amato v. Pultman

Case Details

Full title:VIRGINIA AMATO, Appellant, v. MANUEL PULTMAN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1981

Citations

79 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)