controversy bar in New York

2025The Court in Aristide v City of New York, 129 Misc 2d 483, 485-86 , 493 NYS2d 247 [Sup Ct 1985] considered whether a notice of claim filed by someone other than an administrator is valid: ... the controversy at bar really resolves itself into only one issue, that is, whether the notice of claim requirement, set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e, is satisfied if the notice is filed by one who has not yet received letters of administration.

2025The Court in Aristide v City of New York, 129 Misc 2d 483, 485-86 , 493 NYS2d 247 [Sup Ct 1985] considered whether a notice of claim filed by someone other than an administrator is valid: ... the controversy at bar really resolves itself into only one issue, that is, whether the notice of claim requirement, set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e, is satisfied if the notice is filed by one who has not yet received letters of administration.

1996We note that a class action against a governmental body is not considered the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of a controversy because the doctrine of stare decisis would render the determination of an action binding on the governmental body and would automatically benefit all persons sought to be represented in the class (see, Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 499 ; Matter of Martin v Lavine, 39 NY2d 72, 75 ; Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 ; Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 AD2d 596, 597 ; Oak Beach v Town of Babylon, 100 AD2d 930 ).

1996We note that a class action against a governmental body is not considered the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of a controversy because the doctrine of stare decisis would render the determination of an action binding on the governmental body and would automatically benefit all persons sought to be represented in the class (see, Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 499 ; Matter of Martin v Lavine, 39 NY2d 72, 75 ; Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 ; Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 AD2d 596, 597 ; Oak Beach v Town of Babylon, 100 AD2d 930 ).

1996We note that a class action against a governmental body is not considered the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of a controversy because the doctrine of stare decisis would render the determination of an action binding on the governmental body and would automatically benefit all persons sought to be represented in the class (see, Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 499 ; Matter of Martin v Lavine, 39 NY2d 72, 75 ; Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 ; Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 AD2d 596, 597 ; Oak Beach v Town of Babylon, 100 AD2d 930 ).

1996We note that a class action against a governmental body is not considered the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of a controversy because the doctrine of stare decisis would render the determination of an action binding on the governmental body and would automatically benefit all persons sought to be represented in the class (see, Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 499 ; Matter of Martin v Lavine, 39 NY2d 72, 75 ; Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 ; Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 AD2d 596, 597 ; Oak Beach v Town of Babylon, 100 AD2d 930 ).

1996We note that a class action against a governmental body is not considered the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of a controversy because the doctrine of stare decisis would render the determination of an action binding on the governmental body and would automatically benefit all persons sought to be represented in the class (see, Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 499 ; Matter of Martin v Lavine, 39 NY2d 72, 75 ; Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 ; Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 AD2d 596, 597 ; Oak Beach v Town of Babylon, 100 AD2d 930 ).

1992The court further determined that none of the factors which could qualify the instant controversy as an exception to the mootness doctrine existed (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 ) and dismissed the matter.

1974The former requires a determination not only that there is “ probable cause ” but that “ such employee’s continued presence on the job represents a potential danger to persons or property.” As for subdivision 2, it is obviously inapplicable since there is no suggestion whatever of any “ criminal charge.” It appears to me that the learned opinion of Mr. Justice De Luca in Matter of Randall v. Toll ( 73 Misc 2d 451 ) is particularly, apposite to the controversy at bar.

1974Matter of Randall contains a comprehensive review of the extant United States Supreme Court decisions on this point and the language therein cited from Fuentes v. Shevin ( 407 U. S. 67 ) although concerned with the rights of a creditor rather than a civil service public employee situation, bears repetition: “ In so doing, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to a hearing before an individual is deprived of any significant property right except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event.' (Boddie

1974Matter of Randall contains a comprehensive review of the extant United States Supreme Court decisions on this point and the language therein cited from Fuentes v. Shevin ( 407 U. S. 67 ) although concerned with the rights of a creditor rather than a civil service public employee situation, bears repetition: “ In so doing, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to a hearing before an individual is deprived of any significant property right except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event.' (Boddie

1974Matter of Randall contains a comprehensive review of the extant United States Supreme Court decisions on this point and the language therein cited from Fuentes v. Shevin ( 407 U. S. 67 ) although concerned with the rights of a creditor rather than a civil service public employee situation, bears repetition: “ In so doing, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to a hearing before an individual is deprived of any significant property right except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event.' (Boddie

1962(See Berkliff Undergarment Corp. v. Weissman, 277 App. Div. 964 .) It was held in Castiglione v. State of New York ( 8 Misc 2d 932 ) that an examination before trial of an attorney will not be denied in an instance where privilege is claimed.

1958In the leading* case of Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co. ( 220 N. Y. 259 ) decided in 1917, the court held that although the foreign corporation’s agent is in this State, service of process upon him does not render the corporation subject to the court’s jurisdiction if the corporation is not doing business in this State, and that, in order for a foreign corporation to be held to be doing business here, there had to be business which had “ a fair measure of permanence and continuity ” (p. 267).

1934(Tax Lien Co. v. Schultze, supra, and cases cited.) Parties to an action have a right to limit the issues to be tried to those properly made by the pleadings, but they are not bound so to do and may by mutual consent try other issues.

1933When the case was first presented for adjudication, the court successfully withstood such temptation as may have existed in this direction ( 147 Misc. 330 ).

1873The granting of the writ was in the discretion of the court below If it was improvidently granted, it might have been quashed, upon motion, and this power has been exercised after a return made and argument upon the merits. ( People v. Supervisors of Allegany, 15 Wend., 198 ; People v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 2 Hill, 9 ; Ex parte Weston, 11 Mass., 417 .) No application was made in the court below to quash or supersede the writ, but the judgment passed upon the questions raised by the return.

1873The granting of the writ was in the discretion of the court below If it was improvidently granted, it might have been quashed, upon motion, and this power has been exercised after a return made and argument upon the merits. ( People v. Supervisors of Allegany, 15 Wend., 198 ; People v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 2 Hill, 9 ; Ex parte Weston, 11 Mass., 417 .) No application was made in the court below to quash or supersede the writ, but the judgment passed upon the questions raised by the return.