pronounces a contrary rule in New York

2024Consequently, Cooperman is binding upon this court ( see People v Tupac Shakur , [FN2] 215 AD2d 184 , [1st Dept 1995] ["Trial courts within this department must follow the determination of the Appellate Division in another department until such time as this court or the Court of Appeals passes on the question"]; [*4]Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms , 102 AD2d 663, 664 [2d Dept 1984] ["the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rul

2024Consequently, Cooperman is binding upon this court ( see People v Tupac Shakur , [FN2] 215 AD2d 184 , [1st Dept 1995] ["Trial courts within this department must follow the determination of the Appellate Division in another department until such time as this court or the Court of Appeals passes on the question"]; [*4]Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms , 102 AD2d 663, 664 [2d Dept 1984] ["the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rul

2006(People v Shakur, 215 AD2d 184 [1st Dept 1995]; Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664 [2d Dept 1984]; Matter of Cuthbert S. v Linda S., 161 Misc 2d 372 [Fam Ct 1994].) Therefore, the court is compelled to follow the recent holding of the Second Department which outlines the jurisdictional requirements for the fifing of the violation of probation petition.

2006The court finds that in the absence of a relevant decision from the First Department, the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rule. ( People v Shakur , 215 AD2d 184 [1st Dept 1995]; Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms , 102 AD2d 663, 664 [2d Dept 1984]; Matter of Cuthbert S. v Linda S. , 161 Misc 2d 372 [Fam Ct 1994].) Therefore, the court is compelled to follow the recent holding of the Second Department which outlines the jurisd

2012Co., 300 AD2d 74, 76 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 576 [2003], cert denied 538 US 987 [2003] [Appellate Division, Second Department decision “unless . . . overruled or disagreed with by this Court, is ‘controlling’ authority”]; Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664-665 [2d Dept 1984] [“(T)he doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rule” (citations omitted)].) Indeed, courts of coordinate jurisdiction have conclud

2012Co., 300 AD2d 74, 76 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 576 [2003], cert denied 538 US 987 [2003] [Appellate Division, Second Department decision “unless . . . overruled or disagreed with by this Court, is ‘controlling’ authority”]; Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664-665 [2d Dept 1984] [“(T)he doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rule” (citations omitted)].) Indeed, courts of coordinate jurisdiction have conclud

2002Therefore, this court does not believe that it is bound by Earel as a matter of stare decisis, although it will, of course, accord it “great respect and weight” as is required (People v Waterman, 122 Misc 2d 489 , 495 n 2 [Crim Ct, NY County 1984, Lang, J.]; People v Salzarulo, 168 Misc 2d 408 [Sup Ct, NY County 1996, Fried, J.]).

1994(See also, Passaro v Passaro, 92 AD2d 861 [2d Dept 1983] [decided before the enactment of the CSSA in 1988].) The decision views Social Security disability payments as "a form of support payment by the disabled parent” (at 134).

1994Calculation of the Child Support Award under the CSSA The Hearing Examiner’s failure to follow the Fourth Department’s holding in Matter of Graby v Graby ( 196 AD2d 128 [4th Dept 1994]) regarding the calculation of support awards where the subject children receive Social Security disability benefits was error. 13 (Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664 [2d Dept 1984] ["the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this Department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another Department until the Court of Appeals or this Court pronounces a contrary rule”]

1994Calculation of the Child Support Award under the CSSA The Hearing Examiner’s failure to follow the Fourth Department’s holding in Matter of Graby v Graby ( 196 AD2d 128 [4th Dept 1994]) regarding the calculation of support awards where the subject children receive Social Security disability benefits was error. 13 (Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664 [2d Dept 1984] ["the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this Department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another Department until the Court of Appeals or this Court pronounces a contrary rule”]

1984The Appellate Division is a single State-wide court divided into departments for administrative convenience (see Waldo v Schmidt, 200 NY 199, 202 ; Project, The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York: An Empirical Study of its Powers and Functions as an Intermediate State Court, 47 Ford L Rev 929, 941) and, therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rule (see, e.g., Kirby v Rouselle Corp., 108 Misc 2d 291, 29

1984The Appellate Division is a single State-wide court divided into departments for administrative convenience (see Waldo v Schmidt, 200 NY 199, 202 ; Project, The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York: An Empirical Study of its Powers and Functions as an Intermediate State Court, 47 Ford L Rev 929, 941) and, therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rule (see, e.g., Kirby v Rouselle Corp., 108 Misc 2d 291, 29

1984This is a general principle of appellate procedure (see, e.g., Auto Equity Sales v Superior Ct. of Santa Clara County, 57 Cal 2d 450, 455; Chapman v Pinellas County, 423 So 2d 578, 580 [Fla App]; People v Foote, 104 Ill App 3d 581), necessary to maintain uniformity and consistency (see Lee v Consolidated Edison Co., 98 Misc 2d 304, 306 ), and, consequently, any cases holding to the contrary (see, e.g., People v Waterman, 122 Misc 2d 489, 495, n 2 ) are disapproved.

1984The Appellate Division is a single State-wide court divided into departments for administrative convenience (see Waldo v Schmidt, 200 NY 199, 202 ; Project, The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York: An Empirical Study of its Powers and Functions as an Intermediate State Court, 47 Ford L Rev 929, 941) and, therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rule (see, e.g., Kirby v Rouselle Corp., 108 Misc 2d 291, 29

1984The Appellate Division is a single State-wide court divided into departments for administrative convenience (see Waldo v Schmidt, 200 NY 199, 202 ; Project, The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York: An Empirical Study of its Powers and Functions as an Intermediate State Court, 47 Ford L Rev 929, 941) and, therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rule (see, e.g., Kirby v Rouselle Corp., 108 Misc 2d 291, 29