Kugelman v. Rhodes

New York Supreme Court

Kugelman v. Rhodes

43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 269

DecidedMay 15, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 269 (Kugelman v. Rhodes) 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

Kugelman v. Rhodes, 43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 269 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.:

This is an appeal from an order made by the County Court in Queens county, refusing to set aside an inquest and permit the defendant to answer. Aside from any question of the merits of the application, we think this case falls within the principle laid down in the case of Stebbins v. Cowles (30 Hun, 523). It was discretionary with the County Court whether to grant the order or not. [270]*270The rule is, that the decisions of one tribunal resting in discretion are not reviewable by another.

There is a broad distinction between an appeal seeking to review the discretion of the County Court and a discretion exercised at a Special Term of the Supreme Court. In the latter case the discretion of the Special Term is reviewable by the General Term, but the County Court being an independent tribunal, this court cannot interfere with the exercise of its discretionary powers. But upon the merits we are unable to say there was any abuse of discretion in the County Court, as the defendant was guilty of very great laches.

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Pratt, JS.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

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

Pratt, J.:

This is an appeal from an order made by the County Court in Queens county, refusing to set aside an inquest and permit the defendant to answer. Aside from any question of the merits of the application, we think this case falls within the principle laid down in the case of Stebbins v. Cowles (30 Hun, 523). It was discretionary with the County Court whether to grant the order or not. [270]*270The rule is, that the decisions of one tribunal resting in discretion are not reviewable by another.

There is a broad distinction between an appeal seeking to review the discretion of the County Court and a discretion exercised at a Special Term of the Supreme Court. In the latter case the discretion of the Special Term is reviewable by the General Term, but the County Court being an independent tribunal, this court cannot interfere with the exercise of its discretionary powers. But upon the merits we are unable to say there was any abuse of discretion in the County Court, as the defendant was guilty of very great laches.

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Pratt, JS.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kugelman-v-rhodes-nysupct-1885.