From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoyt v. Kazel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1999
265 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted August 17, 1999

October 25, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).


ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated September 2, 1998, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 16, 1998, made upon reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated December 16, 1998, is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a trial preference is granted, and the order dated September 2, 1998, is modified accordingly; and it is further,

ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff sought a trial preference on the ground of his indigency (see, CPLR 3403[a] [3]; Cenname v. Lindholm, 69 A.D.2d 848 ). It is undisputed that the plaintiff is receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits and food stamps owing to his indigency. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff's application for a trial preference should have been granted (see,Biengardo v. Terbush, 54 A.D.2d 570).

BRACKEN, J.P., THOMPSON, GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hoyt v. Kazel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1999
265 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Hoyt v. Kazel

Case Details

Full title:DAVID W. HOYT, appellant, v. LEONARD KAZEL, et al., respondents

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

Date published: Oct 25, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 135

Citing Cases

Wassel v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion for a trial preference…

Smith v. City of New York

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is…