People ex rel. Schuster v. Herold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Schuster v. Herold

33 A.D.2d 1013, 308 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5457

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 1013 (People ex rel. Schuster v. Herold) 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

People ex rel. Schuster v. Herold, 33 A.D.2d 1013, 308 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on August 6,1969, which denied the motion of petitioner-appellant for further consideration pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 72 of the Mental Hygiene Law, unanimously reversed in the interest of justice and the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the proceeding remanded to Special Term, Part I, New York County, for the calendar of March 30, 1970, for disposition on the merits. If so advised, the movant-petitioner may, no later than 10 days theretofore, serve papers upon the Attorney-General in reply to respondent’s papers in opposition, surreply papers, if any, to be served only if allowed by the Justice presiding. It is, at the very least, unclear whether the movant ever had the opportunity to reply to the Attorney-General’s papers in opposition to the motion or even knew at the time of argument that the Attorney-General intended to submit any such papers. The file of Special Term is in such state that it is impossible to determine this important fact. The motion must therefore be remanded for disposition in a setting wherein both sides may have an opportunity to he heard. Concur — Stevens, P. J., -Eager, Markewieh, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order entered on August 6,1969, which denied the motion of petitioner-appellant for further consideration pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 72 of the Mental Hygiene Law, unanimously reversed in the interest of justice and the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the proceeding remanded to Special Term, Part I, New York County, for the calendar of March 30, 1970, for disposition on the merits. If so advised, the movant-petitioner may, no later than 10 days theretofore, serve papers upon the Attorney-General in reply to respondent’s papers in opposition, surreply papers, if any, to be served only if allowed by the Justice presiding. It is, at the very least, unclear whether the movant ever had the opportunity to reply to the Attorney-General’s papers in opposition to the motion or even knew at the time of argument that the Attorney-General intended to submit any such papers. The file of Special Term is in such state that it is impossible to determine this important fact. The motion must therefore be remanded for disposition in a setting wherein both sides may have an opportunity to he heard. Concur — Stevens, P. J., -Eager, Markewieh, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 1013, 308 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-schuster-v-herold-nyappdiv-1970.