Travelers Insurance v. New York Yankees

102 A.D.2d 851, 476 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19042
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 11, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 102 A.D.2d 851 (Travelers Insurance v. New York Yankees) 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
Travelers Insurance v. New York Yankees, 102 A.D.2d 851, 476 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

— In an action to declare who must defend and pay any liability incurred by plaintiffs in an underlying negligence action brought by a former employee of the New York Yankees, defendant New York Yankees appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 27,1983, as directed that the action be placed on the appropriate Trial Calendar for March 20, 1984. H Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs. 11 Under the [852]*852facts of this case, it was not an abuse of discretion to grant permission to place the action on the calendar on a date certain subsequent to court-ordered discovery which the court directed be completed within 60 days from the date of the order. H If discovery was not timely completed, defaults should have been noted, and appropriate relief pursued, a procedure obviously contemplated by Trial Term by providing a hiatus between the date of the scheduled completion of discovery and the date the action was to be placed on the calendar. 11 It is undisputed that courts have an inherent power to control their calendar (People v Douglass, 60 NY2d 194,197\Plachte v Bancroft Inc., 3 AD2d 437; Kriger v Holland Furnace Co., 12 AD2d 44; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3401.03). 11 Under the facts of this case, the procedure fashioned by Trial Term was most appropriate. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Mangano and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Schreiber-Cross v. State
57 A.D.3d 881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
York v. Strauss
49 A.D.3d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Alvarez v. Snyder
264 A.D.2d 27 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re Jennifer G.
182 Misc. 2d 278 (NYC Family Court, 1999)
Zeitlin v. Greenberg, Margolis, Ziegler, Schwartz, Dratch, Fishman, Franzblau & Falkin, P.A.
262 A.D.2d 406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Rattner v. Planning Commission of Village of Pleasantville
156 A.D.2d 521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Holland v. State
134 Misc. 2d 826 (New York State Court of Claims, 1987)
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Assessor of Brookhaven
122 A.D.2d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Gabrelian v. Gabrelian
108 A.D.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 A.D.2d 851, 476 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-insurance-v-new-york-yankees-nyappdiv-1984.