Opinion

Butler v. Hayduk

  • 37 N.Y.2d 497
  • 373 N.Y.S.2d 863
  • 336 N.E.2d 423
  • 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2088
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Filed
Sep 4, 1975
Status
Published
Author
Wachtlerfuchsbergcooke
On the bench
Breitel, Cooke, Fuchsberg, Wachtler
Cited by
26 cases
Authority
More cited than 27.2%

The opinion

Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke, JJ.

(dissenting). Unlike the petitioners in Matter of Pell v Coveney ( 37 NY2d 494 , decided herewith), the objectant here is not an aggrieved candidate. The Supreme Court Justice who signed the order to show cause made no direction for his inclusion as a party or for service on him. When, having apparently learned of the proceeding, he nevertheless appeared by attorney on its return date, he made no application to be joined as a party. Nor did his counsel plead surprise or seek or express the need for additional time to meet the merits. On the contrary, without the slightest suggestion of prejudice, he categorically refused the Justice’s offer, made in open court, to allow him to so participate.

Under the particular facts of this case, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the matter remitted for determination of the merits. (See Matter of Lamula v Power, 13 NY2d 873 , and Matter of Lloyd v Power, 37 AD2d 792 .)

Judges Jasen, Gabrielli and Jones concur with Chief Judge Breitel; Judges Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke dissent and vote to reverse in a memorandum

Order affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.