From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farewell v. Milbank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1954
284 App. Div. 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Opinion

October 18, 1954.


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for expenses and loss of services, order granting plaintiffs' motion for a preference in the trial of the action reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. There was no sufficient showing warranting the exercise of discretion in favor of granting the preference. (Cf. Quinlan v. Schaefer Brewing Co., 279 App. Div. 805; O'Callaghan v. Brawley, 276 App. Div. 908; Braver v. Davis, 277 App. Div. 879; Pitrello v. Garro, 278 App. Div. 770, and Svei v. Minck Bros., 279 App. Div. 597.) The authorities relied on by plaintiffs ( Belcher v. Erie R.R. Co., 280 App. Div. 796; Bernstein v. Strammiello, 202 Misc. 823) are readily distinguishable. Adel, Acting P.J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Farewell v. Milbank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1954
284 App. Div. 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)
Case details for

Farewell v. Milbank

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM FAREWELL et al., Respondents, v. SAMUEL R. MILBANK, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 18, 1954

Citations

284 App. Div. 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Citing Cases

Sheehan v. Behr

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

Hamill v. New York State Gas Electric Co.

There was no sufficient showing of destitution or indigence to warrant the exercise of discretion in favor of…