## Facts

- Albert Tintner, age 72, brought a negligence action against Donato Marangi.
- Tintner sought a special trial preference after two prior motions for preference were denied (the first without prejudice).
- After the earlier denials, Tintner’s circumstances materially worsened: he involuntarily lost part-time employment attributable to age and became dependent on Social Security.
- Tintner and his 71-year-old wife could no longer maintain their own household and moved into their adult son’s home.
- In the son’s home, Tintner and his wife shared a bedroom with two young grandchildren, reflecting serious crowding and loss of privacy.
- Absent a preference, the court found the case likely would not be tried for roughly two more years, delaying any recovery despite the plaintiff’s age and hardship.

## Issues

1. Whether an elderly plaintiff’s involuntary, age-related loss of part-time employment and resulting severe financial and living-condition hardship constitute sufficient special circumstances to warrant a special trial preference.
2. Whether a renewed motion for trial preference should be granted when prior applications were denied but the movant shows a material change in circumstances.

## Decision

- The court granted Tintner’s motion for a special trial preference.
- The court found the third application was supported by a materially changed factual record, not a reargument of the earlier denials.
- The court ordered the case advanced on the trial calendar to avoid undue prejudice from ordinary calendar delay.

## Legal Principles

- A special trial preference is an exceptional form of calendar relief granted upon a showing of special circumstances, such as advanced age coupled with serious illness or extreme financial or personal hardship.
- A renewed motion previously denied without prejudice may be granted upon a material change in circumstances establishing a stronger record of hardship.
- In assessing hardship, a court may consider not only financial deprivation but also the personal and psychological consequences of age-related loss of work and compromised living conditions.
- Calendar control concerns weigh against preferences, but they may yield where delay would effectively deny meaningful relief to a litigant facing acute hardship.

## Conclusion

The court granted an accelerated trial setting because the plaintiff’s advanced age, involuntary job loss attributable to age, dependency on limited benefits, and markedly worsened living conditions demonstrated special circumstances making ordinary trial delay inequitable.


Tintner v. Marangi, 57 Misc. 2d 318, 292 N.Y.S.2d 779 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 1968)