ריכטער אדעמס, האט שוין באהאנדעלט עטוואס דעם קעיס
Decided on September 8, 2003 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARMENT Argued - May 21, 2003 MYRIAM
J. ALTMAN, J.P. NANCY E. SMITH LEO F. McGINITY THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
2002-01920
2002-01958
[*1]In the Matter of
Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., appellant,
v
Jacob (Jeno) (Yaakov)
Kahana, et al., respondents. (Matter No. 1) (Index No. 28989/01)
In the
Matter of Board of Trustees and Officers of Congregation Yetev Lev
D'Satmar,
appellants,
v
Jacob (Jeno) (Yaakov) Kahana, et al.,
respondents. (Matter No. 2) (Index No. 41256/01)
Congregation Yetev Lev
D'Satmar, Inc., appellant, Ludovick Weisz, et al.,
plaintiffs-
respondents,
v
26 Adar N.B. Corp., et al.,
defendants-respondents. (Matter No. 3)
[*2](Index No.
13224/90)
Pillsbury Winthrop, LLP, New York, N.Y. (E. Leo Milonas, David
G.
Keyko, and Daniel Z. Mollin of counsel), and Smith, Buss &
Jacobs, LLP, New York, N.Y.
(Jeffrey D. Buss of counsel), for
appellants (one brief filed).
Herrick, Feinstein,
LLP, New York, N.Y. (Scott E. Mollen and
Grant R. Cornehls of counsel), for
Jacob
(Jeno) (Yaakov) Kahana, Moses
(Moshe) Friedman, Solomon Sander,
Sol Wertheimer,
Moses Zupnick,
Leibish Jacobowitz, Benjamin Hirsch, Y.A.
Moskowitz, A.M. Reich,
N.A.
Weinberger, Safra Spilman, Issac Weiss, S.
Wertzberger, Israel S. Rosner,
Chaim
Gelbstein, Jacob Glick, Mayer
Shnitzler, Yosef E. Shlesinger,
Abish
Weinberger, and Joseph Polochack,
respondents in Matter Nos. 1 and
2.
Tenenbaum Dunbar Saltiel & Berger, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y.
(David M. Berger and
Gerald J. Durbar
of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents
in Matter No. 3.
In
a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to compel arbitration of claims before
a
rabbinical court (Matter No. 1), a separate proceeding pursuant to N-PCL 618, inter
alia,
to determine the validity of the election of officers of Congregation Yetev Lev
D'Satmar,
Inc. (Matter No. 2), and an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel
the
determination of a claim to real property (Matter No. 3), the petitioners in Matter
Nos. 1
and 2, and Ludovick Weisz and Jacob Schonfeld, plaintiffs in Matter No. 3,
appeal (1) from
an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated January
9, 2002, which, sua
sponte, transferred Matter Nos. 2 and 3 to Justice Melvin Barasch,
before whom Matter No.
1 was pending, and (2), by permission of the Supreme Court,
Kings County, from so much of
an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.),
dated February 6, 2002, as denied
an application to vacate the order dated January 9,
2002, and directed that Matter Nos. 2
and 3 be transferred to Justice
Barasch.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated January 9, 2002, is
dismissed, as no appeal
lies as of right from an order which does not decide a motion
made on notice, and leave to
appeal has not been granted (see CPLR 5701href='http://, ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from
the order dated February 6, 2002, is dismissed; and [*3]it is
further,
ORDERED
that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and
filing
separate briefs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, Justice Pesce, the then
Administrative Judge, did
not order consolidation of the pending proceedings and
action. Rather, he simply
transferred two of the matters to Justice Barasch pursuant to
his administrative authority
so that all the related matters would be before a single
Justice. His administrative
decision is not subject to judicial review (see People v
Schneiderman, 295 AD2d 137;
Matter of Coastal Oil N.Y. v Newton, 231 AD2d 55; Schwartz
v Williams, 124 AD2d 798).
Further, the appellants, who themselves, in effect,
requested that the cases be heard
together, albeit before a different Justice, are not
aggrieved by the order (see CPLR
5511). A party does not have a "vested right to have
his [or her] case tried before any
particular judge, nor does he [or she] have the
right to determine the manner in which his
[or her] case is assigned to a judge"
(Matter of Coastal Oil N.Y. v Newton, supra at 57;
United States ex rel. Monty v
McQuillan, 385 F Supp 1308, 1310, affd 516 F2d 897; see
People v Schneiderman, supra at
138).
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James
Edward Pelzer
Clerk
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated
February 6, 2002, is dismissed; and [*3]it is
further,
ORDERED that one bill of
costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and
filing separate
briefs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, Justice Pesce, the then
Administrative Judge, did
not order consolidation of the pending proceedings and
action. Rather, he simply
transferred two of the matters to Justice Barasch pursuant to
his administrative authority
so that all the related matters would be before a single
Justice. His administrative
decision is not subject to judicial review (see People v
Schneiderman, 295 AD2d 137;
Matter of Coastal Oil N.Y. v Newton, 231 AD2d 55; Schwartz
v Williams, 124 AD2d 798).
Further, the appellants, who themselves, in effect,
requested that the cases be heard
together, albeit before a different Justice, are not
aggrieved by the order (see CPLR
5511). A party does not have a "vested right to have
his [or her] case tried before any
particular judge, nor does he [or she] have the
right to determine the manner in which his
[or her] case is assigned to a judge"
(Matter of Coastal Oil N.Y. v Newton, supra at 57;
United States ex rel. Monty v
McQuillan, 385 F Supp 1308, 1310, affd 516 F2d 897; see
People v Schneiderman, supra at
138).
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James
Edward Pelzer
Clerk
תוקן על ידי - פאקטיש - 13/02/2006 22:31:37
 |
|
|
