Case ID: misc_47/html/0336-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Scott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James E. Garner, Respondent, v. Myer Hellman, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    May, 1905.)
    Practice — Motion to advance cause — Renewal without leave — Amendment to rules.
    The practice of renewing, before one justice of the City Court of the city of New York, a motion to advance a cause to the special calendar for short causes, which had already been heard and denied by another justice, without first obtaining leave of court, will not be sanctioned and-an order granting the motion will be reversed.
    The recent amendment to the rules of the said court, increasing the time to be allowed for a trial on the special calendar, while a potent argument on a motion for leave to renew, does not obviate the necessity for obtaining such leave.
    Appeal from an order made and entered in the City Court of the city of New York, granted on plaintiff’s motion placing this cause on the special calendar.
    Bernard H. Arnold, for appellant.
    Wilford H. Smith, for respondent.
   Scott, J.

We are ordinarily reluctant to interfere with the action of the court below in advancing a cause to the special calendar for short causes, and in the present ease it is not made to appear that the discretion of the justice making the order was abused. There is involved however in this appeal a question more important than any question of discretion, and that is the impropriety of renewing before one justice a motion which had already been heard and denied by another, without first obtaining leave of the court. This practice has been uniformly and very properly condemned by the courts. It does not help matters that the rules of the Oity Court have recently been amended by increasing the time to be allowed for a trial on the special calendar. The papers on appeal do not contain this rule, but wé are apprised of its existence by one of the briefs. It is true that it might be proper to advance a causé when two hours are given for its trial, and would be improper to so advance it if only one hour were allowed. ’ In this sense the question to be considered on the second motion may have differed slightly from that presented on the first, but the motion was identical. The change in the rule might have been a potent argument on a motion for leave to renew, but did not obviate the necessity for obtaining such leave.

Order reversed with costs and disbursements and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, without prejudice to an application below for leave to renew the motion to advance the cause, and to so renew it if leave be obtained.

Leventbitt and Gbeeitbaum, JJ., concur.

Order reversed with costs and disbursements and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, without prejudice ,to an application below for leave to renew motion to advance causey and to so renew if leave be obtained.