Schwartz v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Williams

124 A.D.2d 798, 508 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62118

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 798 (Schwartz v. Williams) 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

Schwartz v. Williams, 124 A.D.2d 798, 508 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

The affidavits submitted by those with personal knowledge, which were not contradicted by any facts in evidentiary form, [799]*799support Special Term’s determination that the standards and administrative policies regarding the assignment of Acting Justices of the Supreme Court, found in the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR part 33) and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR part 121), were fully complied with by the respondents. There being no claims of substance that the discretionary power delegated to the Chief Administrator pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 26 (i) and § 28 regarding the temporary assignment of Judges and Justices has been put to an illegal or unconstitutional use, the exercise of that discretionary power is not subject to judicial review (see, Matter of Marthen v Evans, 83 AD2d 415; Matter of Marro v Bartlett, 46 NY2d 674; Ford v Clarke, 204 App Div 5, affd 236 NY 606). Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

The affidavits submitted by those with personal knowledge, which were not contradicted by any facts in evidentiary form, [799]*799support Special Term’s determination that the standards and administrative policies regarding the assignment of Acting Justices of the Supreme Court, found in the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR part 33) and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR part 121), were fully complied with by the respondents. There being no claims of substance that the discretionary power delegated to the Chief Administrator pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 26 (i) and § 28 regarding the temporary assignment of Judges and Justices has been put to an illegal or unconstitutional use, the exercise of that discretionary power is not subject to judicial review (see, Matter of Marthen v Evans, 83 AD2d 415; Matter of Marro v Bartlett, 46 NY2d 674; Ford v Clarke, 204 App Div 5, affd 236 NY 606). Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 798, 508 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-williams-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack