From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kornstein v. New York Telephone Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1966
26 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

Opinion

October 3, 1966


In a consolidated action to recover damages for injury to person and property and for loss of services, defendants appeal: (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 22, 1965, as, on reconsideration, granted plaintiffs' motion for a general preference; and (2) from an order of said court entered September 9, 1965, which denied defendants' motion for reargument. Appeal from order of September 9, 1965 dismissed, without costs. No appeal lies from such an order ( Creason v. Jaeger, 16 A.D.2d 838). Order of July 22, 1965 reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and plaintiffs' motion for a preference denied. Trial Term granted the preference solely on "jurisdictional grounds", relying on Schott v. Hertz Corp. ( 19 A.D.2d 643). The rule enunciated in that case and the cases cited therein is not applicable to the facts herein. Plaintiffs were not compelled to bring the action in the Supreme Court in order to obtain jurisdiction over defendants (cf. Uniform District Court Act, § 404, par. [a], subd. 2). The consolidated action may properly be removed to a lower court (cf. CPLR 325, subd. [c]). Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kornstein v. New York Telephone Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1966
26 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)
Case details for

Kornstein v. New York Telephone Company

Case Details

Full title:MURIEL KORNSTEIN et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY et…

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

Date published: Oct 3, 1966

Citations

26 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

Citing Cases

Pray v. Lagee Construction Corp.

The excuse proffered for failure to timely file the statement of readiness is unacceptable ( Marzian v.…

Matter of Macku

This being so, the motion is properly treated as one to reargue (10 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, §§…