In re Borden Ave.

152 N.Y.S. 786
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 30, 1915
DocketNo. 164
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 N.Y.S. 786 (In re Borden Ave.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Borden Ave., 152 N.Y.S. 786 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1915).

Opinion

BLACKMAR, J.

I have no doubt that commissioners in street opening proceedings have over Every judicial tribunal necessarily has discretion to control proceedings before it, and any other rule would be inconsistent with orderly and efficient administration. When a claimant has closed his case and been heard in rebuttal, whether he be permitted to reopen it or not rests in the discretion of the commissioners. If such discretion is abused, it may be controlled by the court. The claimant has consumed many sessions of the commission in introducing its evidence, both on its direct case and in rebuttal. Subsequently its request to reopen the case was denied by the commissioners. Whether the denial was an abuse of discretion depends on the whole course of the trial, and also upon the nature of the evidence which the claimant wished to introduce. Nothing has been presented to me which would authorize me to hold that the discretion was abused.

The motion is denied.

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

Related

County of Dutchess v. Swenson
85 Misc. 2d 498 (New York County Courts, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 N.Y.S. 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-borden-ave-nysupct-1915.