Baron v. Lehman

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)
Writing for the CourtMATTHEW M. LEVY
Citation145 N.Y.S.2d 261,208 Misc. 827
Decision Date18 October 1955
PartiesJosephine BARON and Edward Baron, Plaintiffs, v. I. Howard LEHMAN and Lester T. Doyle, as Trustees in the organization of Surface Transportation Corp. of N. Y. and Fran Service Company, Inc., Defendants.

Page 261

145 N.Y.S.2d 261
208 Misc. 827
Josephine BARON and Edward Baron, Plaintiffs,
v.
I. Howard LEHMAN and Lester T. Doyle, as Trustees in the
organization of Surface Transportation Corp. of N.
Y. and Fran Service Company, Inc., Defendants.
Supreme Court, Trial Term, Bronx County, Part I.
Oct. 18, 1955.

Page 262

[208 Misc. 828] McAloon & Hirschberg, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Saxe, Bacon, O'Shea & Bryan, New York City, for defendants Lehman and Doyle, as Trustees of Surface Transportation Corp. of New York.

Goldman & Goldman, New York City, for defendant Fran Service Co., Inc.

MATTHEW M. LEVY, Justice.

The plaintiffs' attorney states, in his application to restore the cause to the ready day calendar for trial, that said restoration is desired 'for the earliest date' 'so that the plaintiffs, who have waited a long time for trial, should not be delayed any further'. But counsel should know that the fault here is not that of the court. Had the plaintiffs been ready to proceed and had they responded on the call of the calendar, their case would have been promptly disposed of, and certainly by now.

For some days before this cause was marked off the day calendar because of the non-appearance of the plaintiffs, it was, at my direction formally and repeatedly announced in the Law Journal (commencing August 31, 1955, p. 1, col. 8) that during the period that I presided in the calendar part (the September 1955 Trial Term, Part I, in Bronx County):

'The attention of the Bar is called to the following:

'The first twenty cases appearing each day on the Jury Calendar and the first ten cases appearing each day on the Non-Jury Calendar must be answered by counsel or by someone from their offices in a position to discuss the facts and with authority to negotiate and effectuate settlement. No other representative will be permitted to answer these cases.'

In the circumstances, the failure of the plaintiffs to appear on the call of the day calendar in this case--in the first twenty of the jury list for the day--cannot be ignored. There was here no judicial desire or intent to inconvenience or harass the bar. The evident purpose was fourfold: (s) To aid attorney and client in a final attempt at amicable settlement of the litigation before trial; (2) to seek to simplify and limit the issues in those cases that did not lend themselves to negotiated disposition; (3) to arrange the day's calendar so that counsel and litigant and witness would be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT