York v. Strauss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

York v. Strauss

49 A.D.3d 774, 853 N.Y.2d 637

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 774 (York v. Strauss) 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

York v. Strauss, 49 A.D.3d 774, 853 N.Y.2d 637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[775]*775The Supreme Court exceeded its authority in setting a deadline for the submission of posttrial memoranda in the action pending under index No. 11853/98 before holding the hearings directed to be held by the decision and order of this Court dated May 26, 1998, and the decision and order of this Court dated October 2, 2000, as amended March 2, 2001. While it is well settled that courts have an inherent power to control their calendar (see Travelers Ins. Co. v New York Yankees, 102 AD2d 851 [1984]), the decision and order of this Court dated June 17, [776]*7762002, deleted the provision of the Supreme Court’s order dated September 12, 2000, directing that the hearings be held at the time of the trial, and the decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 21, 2003, directed that the hearings be held “forthwith.” Under these circumstances, the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to have the hearings held before the Supreme Court set a deadline for the submission of posttrial memoranda (see Matter of Law Offs. of Russell I. Marnell, P.C. v Blydenburgh, 26 AD3d 495 [2006]; Matter of DeCintio v Cohalan, 18 AD3d 872 [2005]). Accordingly, the petition must be granted to the extent indicated, and otherwise denied.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Balkin and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

[775]*775The Supreme Court exceeded its authority in setting a deadline for the submission of posttrial memoranda in the action pending under index No. 11853/98 before holding the hearings directed to be held by the decision and order of this Court dated May 26, 1998, and the decision and order of this Court dated October 2, 2000, as amended March 2, 2001. While it is well settled that courts have an inherent power to control their calendar (see Travelers Ins. Co. v New York Yankees, 102 AD2d 851 [1984]), the decision and order of this Court dated June 17, [776]*7762002, deleted the provision of the Supreme Court’s order dated September 12, 2000, directing that the hearings be held at the time of the trial, and the decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 21, 2003, directed that the hearings be held “forthwith.” Under these circumstances, the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to have the hearings held before the Supreme Court set a deadline for the submission of posttrial memoranda (see Matter of Law Offs. of Russell I. Marnell, P.C. v Blydenburgh, 26 AD3d 495 [2006]; Matter of DeCintio v Cohalan, 18 AD3d 872 [2005]). Accordingly, the petition must be granted to the extent indicated, and otherwise denied.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Balkin and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 774, 853 N.Y.2d 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/york-v-strauss-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack