descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Myers

Citations: 99 A.D.2d 1030; 473 N.Y.S.2d 823; 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17467

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 28, 1984; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

A CPLR article 78 petition was filed on February 23, 1984, seeking to prohibit a respondent from participating as a Supreme Court Justice in a lawsuit involving the petitioner. The petition was unanimously denied and dismissed without costs. The court found that the respondent had not exceeded his jurisdiction and that the petitioner was not precluded from appealing the respondent's determinations made within that jurisdiction, indicating that a writ of prohibition was not applicable. Additionally, a motion by the petitioner-defendant to stay the hearing of two motions was also denied. The court noted the inappropriate combination of a contempt motion with a summary judgment motion. The decision was concurred by Judges Sullivan, Carro, Bloom, Milonas, and Kassal.

Legal Issues Addressed

Combination of Contempt and Summary Judgment Motions

Application: The court observed the inappropriateness of combining a contempt motion with a summary judgment motion, thereby denying the petitioner's motion to stay the hearing of two motions.

Reasoning: The court noted the inappropriate combination of a contempt motion with a summary judgment motion.

Denial and Dismissal of CPLR Article 78 Petition

Application: The CPLR article 78 petition filed by the petitioner was denied and dismissed unanimously, emphasizing that the petition lacked merit as the respondent acted within jurisdiction.

Reasoning: A CPLR article 78 petition was filed on February 23, 1984, seeking to prohibit a respondent from participating as a Supreme Court Justice in a lawsuit involving the petitioner. The petition was unanimously denied and dismissed without costs.

Prohibition under CPLR Article 78

Application: The court determined that a writ of prohibition was not applicable as the respondent had not exceeded his jurisdiction.

Reasoning: The court found that the respondent had not exceeded his jurisdiction and that the petitioner was not precluded from appealing the respondent's determinations made within that jurisdiction, indicating that a writ of prohibition was not applicable.