Balsamo v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Balsamo v. New York City Transit Authority

208 A.D.2d 406, 618 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9662

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 406 (Balsamo v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Balsamo v. New York City Transit Authority, 208 A.D.2d 406, 618 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about December 14, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, restored the case to the trial calendar on the condition of payment of $3,500 to the New York County Clerk and $1,500 to defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court had the inherent power to vacate its prior order (Ruben v American & Foreign Ins. Co., 185 AD2d 63, 67). We find no reason to disturb the discretionary exercise of this authority by the Justice who was in the best position to weigh the relative equities, including the preference for a determination of plaintiff’s claims on the merits. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about December 14, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, restored the case to the trial calendar on the condition of payment of $3,500 to the New York County Clerk and $1,500 to defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court had the inherent power to vacate its prior order (Ruben v American & Foreign Ins. Co., 185 AD2d 63, 67). We find no reason to disturb the discretionary exercise of this authority by the Justice who was in the best position to weigh the relative equities, including the preference for a determination of plaintiff’s claims on the merits. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 406, 618 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balsamo-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack