Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A. v. Greenfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A. v. Greenfield

211 A.D.2d 477, 620 N.Y.S.2d 387

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 477 (Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A. v. Greenfield) 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

Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A. v. Greenfield, 211 A.D.2d 477, 620 N.Y.S.2d 387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition, pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking a writ of mandamus directing a new trial of the underlying action before a different Justice, granted only to the extent of directing respondent to render and file decisions on all pending post-trial motions in the underlying action within thirty days of the entry hereof. The petition is otherwise denied in all respects and the cross-motion to dismiss this proceeding is denied, without costs.

Although it appears that the parties may have chartered their own course and acquiesced until now in the court’s delay in rendering a decision on the post-trial motions by making intermittent submissions on the attorney’s fee issue, a five year delay in the rendition of a decision is manifestly unacceptable. Accordingly, inasmuch as respondent states that a decision is "forthcoming,” the petition is granted to the extent indicated. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Petition, pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking a writ of mandamus directing a new trial of the underlying action before a different Justice, granted only to the extent of directing respondent to render and file decisions on all pending post-trial motions in the underlying action within thirty days of the entry hereof. The petition is otherwise denied in all respects and the cross-motion to dismiss this proceeding is denied, without costs.

Although it appears that the parties may have chartered their own course and acquiesced until now in the court’s delay in rendering a decision on the post-trial motions by making intermittent submissions on the attorney’s fee issue, a five year delay in the rendition of a decision is manifestly unacceptable. Accordingly, inasmuch as respondent states that a decision is "forthcoming,” the petition is granted to the extent indicated. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 477, 620 N.Y.S.2d 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frota-oceanica-brasileira-s-a-v-greenfield-nyappdiv-1995.