I read with surprise and dismay the decision rendered by Bronx Supreme Court Justice Sharon Aarons in Alberto Galue v. Independence 270 Madison, LLC, et al (NYLJ, April 3). In this case, the plaintiff sought a trial preference, based upon the recently diagnosed terminal illness of the plaintiff’s attorney, Sidney Segall. Inexplicably, Segall’s motion for a preference was denied, despite the very cogent reasons that he proffered in favor of his application.
Putting aside my friendship with Segall, and my understanding of his pancreatic cancer and lymphoma prognosis, it seems on an objective level, that the humanity of the law was lost in Justice Aaron’s decision. There is a very real possibility that Segall will not be physically or emotionally able to try this case if it lingers for many more months without a resolution. The four-year long relationship of trust and understanding that he and his client have established could not exist with any substituted counsel, among the tens of thousands of pages of court documents, exhibits, and letters that have already been generated. Indeed, the only person who will suffer from the denial of the preference motion will be the plaintiff, who wants Segall to handle his case to its conclusion. And that is why the motion was made in the first place.
