Cane v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cane v. Herman

209 A.D.2d 368, 618 N.Y.S.2d 792

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 368 (Cane v. Herman) 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

Cane v. Herman, 209 A.D.2d 368, 618 N.Y.S.2d 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered April 1, 1994, which, inter alia, directed that plaintiff pay monthly rent into the court pending the outcome of a rent overcharge proceeding by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"[A] Supreme Court Justice is vested with inherent plenary power [citation omitted] to fashion any remedy necessary for the proper administration of justice.” (People ex rel. Doe v Beaudoin, 102 AD2d 359, 363.) Here, the court’s direction that plaintiff pay his monthly rent into court pending the outcome of proceedings to be conducted by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal was not an abuse of discretion inasmuch as it serves to provide an incentive to both parties to litigate the matter as expeditiously as possible (see, Wagner v Kurz, 92 AD2d 775).

We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered April 1, 1994, which, inter alia, directed that plaintiff pay monthly rent into the court pending the outcome of a rent overcharge proceeding by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"[A] Supreme Court Justice is vested with inherent plenary power [citation omitted] to fashion any remedy necessary for the proper administration of justice.” (People ex rel. Doe v Beaudoin, 102 AD2d 359, 363.) Here, the court’s direction that plaintiff pay his monthly rent into court pending the outcome of proceedings to be conducted by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal was not an abuse of discretion inasmuch as it serves to provide an incentive to both parties to litigate the matter as expeditiously as possible (see, Wagner v Kurz, 92 AD2d 775).

We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 368, 618 N.Y.S.2d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cane-v-herman-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack