You are here: / / SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF PETITION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, LACK OF STANDING...
,

SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF PETITION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect and held that the court’s sua sponte dismissal of an Article 78/declaratory judgment petition was an abuse of discretion:

We agree with petitioners that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in sua sponte dismissing the petition. “[U]se of the [sua sponte] power of dismissal must be restricted to the most extraordinary circumstances”… . No such extraordinary circumstances are present in this case. Contrary to the court’s determination, “a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint” … . We therefore reverse the judgment insofar as appealed from in the exercise of discretion and reinstate the petition … . Matter of Associated Gen. Contrs. of NYS, LLC v New York State Thruway Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 02075, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF PETITION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT))/STANDING (CIVIL PROCEDURE, SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF PETITION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT))/JUDGES  (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF PETITION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF PETITION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Motion to Quash Subpoena for Billing Records Re: the Insurance Company’s Examining Physician Properly Denied
Question of Fact Raised in Rear-End Collision Case
Conviction on a Lesser Inclusory Count Can Not Stand Even In the Absence of Preservation
(Harmless) Error to Admit Voice Identification Testimony—The People Did Not Provide Notice of the Testimony and the Identification Was Not Merely Confirmatory
SENTENCING COURT DID NOT MAKE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING, MATTER SENT BACK, BECAUSE THE LEGALITY OF THE SENTENCE IS IMPLICATED THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS TO PREVAILING DEFENDANTS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS DOG BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FALL ON SIDEWALK NEAR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT NOT COMPENSABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED... NOTICE OF INTENTION INSUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE...