Opinion
September 21, 1970
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 15, 1970 and made on reargument, as adhered to the original determination denying them a general preference. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiffs' motion for a general preference granted. In our opinion, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny plaintiffs' application for a general preference. Neither a conflict between medical experts concerning the proximate cause of the plaintiff wife's diplopia nor a weighing of the evidence concerning that issue is relevant to whether a general preference should be granted ( Martin v. Suarez, 30 A.D.2d 947). Christ, P.J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.