observance rule in New York

1961Insistence on the observance of the rule makes for the orderly administration of justice, and is not the enforcement of a mere technical rule of practice.” (Rothschild v. Haviland, 172 App. Div. 562, 563 ; see, also, Benadon v. Antonio, 10 A D 2d 40.) A defendant in default does not establish a right to relief merely by presenting a proposed answer, containing denials and affirmatory defenses alleged principally in eonelusory form.

1932Insistence on the observance of the rule makes for the orderly administra tion of justice, and is not the enforcement of a mere technical rule of practice.” (Rothschild v. Haviland, 172 App. Div. 562, 563 .) Notwithstanding the fact that defendant, on the 13th day of October, 1931, knew that a judgment had been entered against him, he neglected to take any action for a period of over four months and not until after execution had been issued to the sheriff of Niagara county.

1992Roe & Roe v Suffolk Common Pleas, 18 Wend 550, 552; see also, Matter of Pelaez v Waterfront Commn., 88 AD2d 443, 447-448 .) Courts of this State, while finding no actual fault in the conduct of the hearing, have held "as a matter of propriety” that administrative officers should recuse themselves in situations where prior involvement creates an appearance of partiality (see, e.g., Matter of O’Reilly v Pisani, 79 AD2d 973, 974 ; Matter of Aiello v Tempera, 65 AD2d 791 ; Matter of Waters v McGinnis, 29 AD2d 969 ).

1992Roe & Roe v Suffolk Common Pleas, 18 Wend 550, 552; see also, Matter of Pelaez v Waterfront Commn., 88 AD2d 443, 447-448 .) Courts of this State, while finding no actual fault in the conduct of the hearing, have held "as a matter of propriety” that administrative officers should recuse themselves in situations where prior involvement creates an appearance of partiality (see, e.g., Matter of O’Reilly v Pisani, 79 AD2d 973, 974 ; Matter of Aiello v Tempera, 65 AD2d 791 ; Matter of Waters v McGinnis, 29 AD2d 969 ).

1922Insistence on the observance of the rule makes for the orderly administration of justice, and is not the enforcement of a mere technical rule of practice.” In Dana v. Thaw ( 56 Misc.

1921(Heischober v. Polishook, 152 App. Div. 193, 195 ; Clews v. Peper, 112 id. 430.) * * * insistence on the observance of the rule makes for the orderly administration of justice, and is not the enforcement of a mere technical rule of practice.” (Milkman v. Casesa, 175 App. Div. 904 ; Troy & Albany S. Co., Inc., v. Terry & Tench Co., Inc., 192 id. 764.) In the latter case a bill of particulars was denied upon moving papers very like those here under consideration, and the rule was stated and enforced that “ the moving papers must show to the court the facts and circumstances from which merit in t

1921(Heischober v. Polishook, 152 App. Div. 193, 195 ; Clews v. Peper, 112 id. 430.) * * * insistence on the observance of the rule makes for the orderly administration of justice, and is not the enforcement of a mere technical rule of practice.” (Milkman v. Casesa, 175 App. Div. 904 ; Troy & Albany S. Co., Inc., v. Terry & Tench Co., Inc., 192 id. 764.) In the latter case a bill of particulars was denied upon moving papers very like those here under consideration, and the rule was stated and enforced that “ the moving papers must show to the court the facts and circumstances from which merit in t

1917The rule enunciated in Curran v. Galen does not seem to have been departed from in this State, It was not heartily approved in National Protective Association v. Cumming (supra), but it was followed by that authority.

1913(Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 N. Y. 547 ; St.

1895Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 67 N. Y. 409 ; In re Hewitt, 91 N. Y. 261 ; In re O’Neil, Id. 516; In re Conway, 124 N. Y. 455 , 26 N. E. 1028 .

1895Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 67 N. Y. 409 ; In re Hewitt, 91 N. Y. 261 ; In re O’Neil, Id. 516; In re Conway, 124 N. Y. 455 , 26 N. E. 1028 .

1895Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 67 N. Y. 409 ; In re Hewitt, 91 N. Y. 261 ; In re O’Neil, Id. 516; In re Conway, 124 N. Y. 455 , 26 N. E. 1028 .

1895Such a result can only be avoided, practically, by the observance of this rule.” In People v. Crapo, 76 N. Y. 288 , the defendant, who was on trial for burglary, was asked, on cross-examination, if he had been arrested on a charge of bigamy.

1895In People v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 458 , 14 N. E. 319 , Danforth, J., said: “It is, indeed, elementary law that no evidence can be admitted which does not tend to prove the issue joined, and the reason and necessity of the rule are much stronger in criminal than in civil cases for the observance of this rule, and of confining the evidence strictly to the issue.

1895Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 67 N. Y. 409 ; In re Hewitt, 91 N. Y. 261 ; In re O’Neil, Id. 516; In re Conway, 124 N. Y. 455 , 26 N. E. 1028 .

1892And the courts can no more dispense with the observance of this requirement in the making and filing of a notice than they can with that of any other direction required to be observed for the purpose of creating a lien. ” See, also, cases cited by Daniels, J., in Gaskell v. Beard, 58 Hun, 107 , 11 N. Y.