From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 18, 1993
198 A.D.2d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

November 18, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).


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 A.D.2d 192, 194, amended 179 A.D.2d 372).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 18, 1993
198 A.D.2d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

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

Case Details

Full title:WORK-O-LITE COMPANY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIGHTING UNLIMITED…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 18, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
604 N.Y.S.2d 734

Citing Cases

Walker v. Saftler Kirschner

Before: Murphy, P.J., Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ. Although disclosure had not been completed when the note of…