Source: https://bruteforcelawyer.com/author/bruteforcelawyer/page/120/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:38:16+00:00

Document:
form and thus improperly considered by the motion court is without merit.
Compare this decision with Tu v Loan Pricing Corp., 2008 NY Slip Op 51945(U) (Supreme Court, New York County), one post below.
colleague" (Siegel, NY Prac § 253, at 433 [4th ed]).
application for leave to [*2]renew and reargue, Justice Ross, in effect, improperly overruled a court of coordinate jurisdiction (see People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499,504; Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8,15; Nong Yaw Trakansook v 39 Wood Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 633; Matter of Eisenstadt v Eisenstadt, 277 AD2d 378; Clearwater Realty Co. v Hernandez, 256 AD2d 100).
In short, a motion to renew and reargue should go to the judge that decided the original order, because we don’t want judges in the same court to overrule each other. Havoc would ensue.
Where are all the pictures of the CPLR?
You know the one; the big red book we’ve all come to know and love. I just spent half an hour looking for pictures in an attempt to snazz up this blog, and, much to my surprise and chagrin, I was able to find all of one picture. And it wasn’t even a good one. Even more strange were the results from my picture search for "Richardson on Evidence".
No need to worry though. I will take some pictures of my own books tomorrow.
Now why is this important? It just is.
While I’m at it, I think everyone should have their own copy of the CPLR. Having a copy sitting in some lonely corner of the law office library, or in that one person’s office (you know, the one with the coffee stained shirt and the mismatched socks) just isn’t enough. Every office or cubicle should have one. You should be reading it on the train and one on CD to listen to while in the car.
It is the final authority on all matters and should be respected. There, I said it.
Author DMGPosted on September 24, 2008 Categories UncategorizedLeave a comment on Where are all the pictures of the CPLR?
Discovery was dragging on for several years and the Court told plaintiff to file an NOI. After it was filed, both parties were ordered to appear on August 14th. On that day plaintiff received an adjournment over defendant’s objection. It was adjourned to October 12. When October 12th came around, the plaintiff’s attorney who had previously appeared wasn’t there. Instead, his partner appeared with an "affirmation of engagement". That affirmation stated that he was on trial in another matter, however, as the court later found out, he was not "on trial." Rather, he was preparing for a trial; jury selection was to start October 16.
The Court, after becoming aware of the situation, "rejected the affirmation of engagement as misleading, and dismissed this action." Plaintiff then moved to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR § 5015(a)(1) and the lower court denied the motion.
failing to proceed to trial in this action.
jury be considered to be on trial on the day the direction is given.
he had not commenced selecting a jury in that case.
determine which trial should proceed first.
Monday’s New York Law Journal will have David Siegel’s (of "Siegel, New York Practice" fame) article, Amendment Bars ‘Neglect to Prosecute’ Dismissal. In it he discusses a recent amendment to CPLR § 205(a) will have an effect on motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR R. 3216.
Chapter 156 of the Laws of 2008 was signed into law on July 7, 2008, took effect immediately, and is in effect now.
action, which is sterling news for plaintiffs. Tentatively, anyway.
months for a new action.
galaxy of its own, in which CPLR 3216 is but one planet.
"general pattern of delay" conclusion.
the job. There’s got to be a "pattern" of dilatory conduct.
The article goes on to discuss ways for defendants to make sure their CPLR R. 3216 motions are effective in light of the "general pattern of delay" requirement as well as whether CPLR § 205(a) will have an impact on CPLR R. 3404 motions. Towards the end, Mr. Siegal has a very interesting discussion regarding the history of CPLR R. 3216.
Look for more on this article later.
CPLR R. 3212 Motion for summary judgment.
motion was beyond the 60-day deadline, and dismissed the complaint.
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the Decision and Order, holding that an oversight regarding the court rules did not constitute "good cause" under Brill and CPLR 3212. Justice Tom and Williams dissented.
the Court’s holding, which should be handed down in October.
Justice. In so doing, contrary to the unfortunate statements by the dissent, we neither "reproach"
Supreme Court having decided a dispositive motion adversely to plaintiff.
There was a strong dissent.
CPLR R. 3212(a) is one of those little things that can turn into one of those big things if it’s overlooked or its importance underestimated.
Keep an eye on New York Civil Law for future developments. Don’t forget to check here as well.
Enforcement of an out of state subpoena and the Court’s ability to quash.
Matter of Trump v Sulzberger, 2008 NY Slip Op 51810(U) (Supreme Court, New York County).
Here, Trump made a motion in New Jersey for "non-party out-of-state depositions of three executives of The Times" and the motion was granted by Judge Kassel.
Well, what about New York’s end? Here’s where it gets interesting.
tecum on Sulzberger, Keller and Ingrassia. On that same day, the Hon.
threshold determination as to whether to permit the discovery. The New [*4]York court’s role is necessaril y more limited." Matter of Welch, 183 Misc 2d 890, 891 (Sup Ct, NY Co 2000).
the conduct of such examinations.’" Id (quoting Matter of Roberts, 214 AD 271, 275 [1st Dept 1925]).
privilege, see Bombadier Capital Inc. v. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti P.C., 46 AD3d 323 (1st Dept 2007), Kirkland & Ellis v. Chadbourne & Parke, supra.
"rubber stamping" the determination of the New Jersey court. See id at 77.
In the end, the Court, after taking several factors into account, decided to quash one subpoena and limit the scope of the discovery requested as to the other.
In short, CPLR § 3102(e) allows New York courts to enforce discovery ordered by a court in a different state, it has the ability to issue a protective order pursuant to CPLR § 3103(a) under a limited set of circumstances.
This blog should be an interesting adventure. It will be devoted to all things CPLR, including, but not limited to, changes, interpretation, caselaw, and various sundry other CPLR type things.

References: § 253
 § 5015
 § 205
 § 205
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3102
 § 3103