Moderator: TenantNet
by NYHawk » Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:08 pm
by Anna » Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:11 am
ROSEN v. CHAVIS
NYLJ, 5/16/01, page 21, col 4
Judge Bedford
Footnote[2] Respondent claims she attended the University of Detroit Law School and completed a criminal and civil internship and practiced under Michigan's GCR 921. Notwithstanding this, the Court has afforded respondent the same leeway as a pro-se.
2215-75 Cruger Apartments, Inc. v. Stovel
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 23683
N.Y.Sup.App.Term,2003.
July 22, 2003.
[C]ourts generally allow pro se litigants some leeway in the presentation of their case" Stoves & Stones, Ltd. v. Rubens, 237 A.D.2d 280; see also, Matter of Village of Attica v. Nutty, 184 AD2d 1057. It is evident from the record that tenant did not waive the issue of timeliness of service of the notice to cure, but sufficiently preserved the issue...
(also published: NYLJ, page 18, col 1, Jul. 24, 2003)
DEL PIANO v. EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
New York Law Journal
July 7, 1999
SECOND CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS
This Court has also made clear that “[a] party appearing without counsel is afforded extra leeway in meeting the procedural rules governing litigation, and trial judges must make some effort to protect a party so appearing from waiving a right to be heard because of his or her lack of legal knowledge.” Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 1993).
The district court erred in not giving the pro se plaintiff “extra leeway,” and in being overly strict in applying the criteria regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute.
by NYHawk » Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:30 am
by Phil Cohen » Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:43 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests
Subscribe to our Mailing List! | |||||||