Mazur v. Orlorsky

New York Supreme Court

Mazur v. Orlorsky

28 Misc. 2d 704, 211 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3603

DecidedJanuary 5, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Misc. 2d 704 (Mazur v. Orlorsky) 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

Mazur v. Orlorsky, 28 Misc. 2d 704, 211 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3603 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Benjamin Bkenneb, J.

Motion to reconsider a denial of a rule 9 preference on the unspecified ground of unconstitutionality is denied. The injuries claimed are not of such serious or protracted nature as to require trial in this court. The inherent power to control the order of the court’s litigation and the rights of jurisdictionally acceptable suitors to priority of trial has been reiterated by the Appellate Division of this Department (Kriger v. Holland Furnace Co., 12 A D 2d 44).

I believe rule 9 of the rules of this court to be salutary even if nonpreferred actions never do reach trial in this court since [705]*705they may well be instituted in courts of lesser jurisdiction where adequate compensation may be secured. To paraphrase Nolan, P. J., in the last-cited case (p. 48), “ Our trial calendars are far too crowded to justify or permit the neglect of # * * ligi-

gation ’ ’ properly initiated in this court. This mass of waiting and properly instituted litigation must be free to flow to conclusion without intervening hindrance of lesser lawsuits which, however meritorious, are not of Supreme Court caliber.

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

Benjamin Bkenneb, J.

Motion to reconsider a denial of a rule 9 preference on the unspecified ground of unconstitutionality is denied. The injuries claimed are not of such serious or protracted nature as to require trial in this court. The inherent power to control the order of the court’s litigation and the rights of jurisdictionally acceptable suitors to priority of trial has been reiterated by the Appellate Division of this Department (Kriger v. Holland Furnace Co., 12 A D 2d 44).

I believe rule 9 of the rules of this court to be salutary even if nonpreferred actions never do reach trial in this court since [705]*705they may well be instituted in courts of lesser jurisdiction where adequate compensation may be secured. To paraphrase Nolan, P. J., in the last-cited case (p. 48), “ Our trial calendars are far too crowded to justify or permit the neglect of # * * ligi-

gation ’ ’ properly initiated in this court. This mass of waiting and properly instituted litigation must be free to flow to conclusion without intervening hindrance of lesser lawsuits which, however meritorious, are not of Supreme Court caliber.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 2d 704, 211 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazur-v-orlorsky-nysupct-1961.