Work-O-Lite Co. v. Lighting Unlimited, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Work-O-Lite Co. v. Lighting Unlimited, Inc.

198 A.D.2d 144, 604 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10827

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 18, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 8, 1993, which, inter alia, denied appellant’s motion to strike two notes of issue, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The instant order denying vacatur was, in effect, a refusal to reconsider an earlier one ordering the matter to trial with no further discovery, from which no appeal was taken. The IAS Judge had reviewed the entire history of discovery, noting that disputes between the parties had caused four years to pass with no discovery, made a determination that both sides were dilatory, and ordered discovery cease. Since the IAS Judge was in the best position to discern the most just resolution, his later refusal to reconsider was consistent with the court’s inherent power to control its own calendar and the disposition of business before it (see, Matter of Hochberg v Davis, 171 AD2d 192, 194, amended 179 AD2d 372). Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 8, 1993, which, inter alia, denied appellant’s motion to strike two notes of issue, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The instant order denying vacatur was, in effect, a refusal to reconsider an earlier one ordering the matter to trial with no further discovery, from which no appeal was taken. The IAS Judge had reviewed the entire history of discovery, noting that disputes between the parties had caused four years to pass with no discovery, made a determination that both sides were dilatory, and ordered discovery cease. Since the IAS Judge was in the best position to discern the most just resolution, his later refusal to reconsider was consistent with the court’s inherent power to control its own calendar and the disposition of business before it (see, Matter of Hochberg v Davis, 171 AD2d 192, 194, amended 179 AD2d 372). Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Work-O-Lite Co. v. Lighting Unlimited, Inc., 198 A.D.2d 144, 604 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

198 A.D.2d 144 (Work-O-Lite Co. v. Lighting Unlimited, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related