Schwartz v. Williams
| Decision Date | 24 November 1986 |
| Citation | 124 A.D.2d 798,508 N.Y.S.2d 521 |
| Parties | Seymour SCHWARTZ, Appellant, v. Milton L. WILLIAMS, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Brown & Seymour, New York City (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., and Claude P. Bordwine, of counsel), for appellant.
Michael Colodner, New York City (Patricia P. Satterfield and Ellen Boegel, of counsel), for respondents.
Before BROWN, J.P., and NIEHOFF, KOOPER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review an administrative transfer order of the respondents, dated December 2, 1985, by which the petitioner was relieved of his assignment as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court and reassigned to the Civil Court of the City of New York, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered December 31, 1985, which denied his application for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the petition.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The affidavits submitted by those with personal knowledge, which were not contradicted by any facts in evidentiary form, support Special Term's determination that the standards and administrative policies regarding the assignment of Acting Justices of the Supreme Court, found in the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR part 33) and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR part 121), were fully complied with by the respondents. There being no claims of substance that the discretionary power delegated to the Chief Administrator pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, §§ 26(i) and 28 regarding the temporary assignment of judges and justices has been put to an illegal or unconstitutional use, the exercise of that discretionary power is not subject to judicial review (see, Matter of Marthen v. Evans, 83 A.D.2d 415, 445 N.Y.S.2d 329; Matter of Marro v. Bartlett, 46 N.Y.2d 674, 416 N.Y.S.2d 212, 389 N.E.2d 808; Ford v. Clarke, 204 App.Div. 5, 197 N.Y.S. 424, affd. 236 N.Y. 606, 142 N.E. 302).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. N.Y. Office of Court Admin.
...North Arrow Abstract & Settlement Servs., Inc. , 160 A.D.3d 121, 131-133, 73 N.Y.S.3d 70 [2d Dept. 2018] ; Schwartz v. Williams , 124 A.D.2d 798, 799, 508 N.Y.S.2d 521 [2d Dept. 1986] ; Matter of Marthen v. Evans , 83 A.D.2d 415, 417-418, 445 N.Y.S.2d 329 [4th Dept. 1981] ). Generally, abse......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Letennier, 529988
...illegal or unconstitutional use, the exercise of that discretionary power is not subject to judicial review" ( Schwartz v. Williams, 124 A.D.2d 798, 799, 508 N.Y.S.2d 521 [1986] ). Defendant's remaining arguments are either academic or without merit. Because defendant failed to raise a bona......
-
Colgan v. Crosson
...the Chief Administrator's determination not to reappoint petitioner is not subject to judicial review (see, Schwartz v. Williams, 124 A.D.2d 798, 508 N.Y.S.2d 521, citing, inter alia, Matter of Marro v. Bartlett, 6 N.Y.2d 674, 681-682, 416 N.Y.S.2d 212, 389 N.E.2d 808). KUPFERMAN, Justice (......