In re Tenace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tenace

234 A.D.2d 722, 650 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12483

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 722 (In re Tenace) 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

In re Tenace, 234 A.D.2d 722, 650 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—White, J.

Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Griset, J.), entered January 24, 1996, which denied petitioner’s motion to vacate a prior order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent.

Fourteen years after an order was entered adjudicating petitioner a juvenile delinquent, he moved to vacate it. Family Court denied the motion on the ground that the time to appeal had expired.

We affirm, but on a different ground. While the right to seek [723]*723legal redress is broad, it is not without limitations. One limitation is that a party cannot unreasonably and inexcusably delay in seeking relief to the prejudice of the opposing party (see, Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 81 NY2d 336, 348). In this instance, as petitioner has offered no explanation for his delay which was inherently prejudicial to respondent, the denial of his motion was justified (see, 75 NY Jur 2d, Limitations and Laches, § 336, at 541).

Mikoll, J. P., Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, without costs.

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

—White, J.

Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Griset, J.), entered January 24, 1996, which denied petitioner’s motion to vacate a prior order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent.

Fourteen years after an order was entered adjudicating petitioner a juvenile delinquent, he moved to vacate it. Family Court denied the motion on the ground that the time to appeal had expired.

We affirm, but on a different ground. While the right to seek [723]*723legal redress is broad, it is not without limitations. One limitation is that a party cannot unreasonably and inexcusably delay in seeking relief to the prejudice of the opposing party (see, Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 81 NY2d 336, 348). In this instance, as petitioner has offered no explanation for his delay which was inherently prejudicial to respondent, the denial of his motion was justified (see, 75 NY Jur 2d, Limitations and Laches, § 336, at 541).

Mikoll, J. P., Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 722, 650 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tenace-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack