« Can Defense Counsel Interview Plaintiff's Treating Doctors in Medical Malpractice Cases? | Main | Teens--Have All The Sex You Want--But Whatever You Do, Don't Take Pictures »

March 19, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516c2469e200d834ee564a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New York Legal Trivia:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Scott Greenfield

zero. They're all justices. Sometimes I just crack myself up.

NBlack

Thanks Scott. Error duly noted and correction duly made. I should have caught that when I typed it! Now how am I going to declare an "official" winner, since you arguably got it right? ;)

slickdpdx

Three was all I had. I'm sure they all did their best to get out of MY argument. So, Mr. Gottlieb's got to be right. I'll be flattered if he's not, and one or two showed up that didn't absolutely have to.

David M. Gottlieb, Esq.

I'm the smartest man alive!

Scott Greenfield

Slick, there were five justices there, but 2 were so afraid of you they were hiding under the bench.

But Gottlieb is still the smartest man alive.

Bill Altreuter

gotta be three, although I've never seen it. Seems to me I've seen four....

NBlack

I'm hoping that *someone* knows the answer to this particular question, because I sure don't! Most of the time I plan to actually *know* that answer to the trivia questions, but in this particular case, I came upon this issue when emailing with another blogger and wondered what the answer was.

On occasion I may ask a question that I don't know the answer to in the hopes that my oh-so-intelligent readers can shed some light on a particular issue. You guys don't mind, right?

In this case, I did some cursory research and had a working guess that has already been shot to hell by the fact that Slick only had three justices on his panel. Damn you Slick! You ruined everything!

Scott Greenfield

Now I feel badly about being such a wiseguy. See Judiciary, Article 4, Section 82.

S 82. Quorum and number necessary to a sitting and decision of appellate division. No more than five justices of the appellate division in any department shall sit in any case. In each department four of the
justices shall constitute a quorum, and the concurrence of three shall be necessary to a decision. If three justices do not concur in a decision, a reargument must be ordered.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

About This Blog

Sui Generis Partner

Other Sui Generis Sponsors





Receive Updates Via Email

disclaimer

  • This site is intended purely as a resource guide for educational and informational purposes and is not intended to provide specific legal advice. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney in your state. The use and receipt of the information offered on this site is not intended to create, nor does it create, an attorney-client relationship.

    Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or otherwise. However, please be advised that an attorney-client relationship is not created through the act of sending electronic mail to me.

    The comments on this blog are solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does Legal Antics or Nicole L. Black endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.

    Further, any information provided on this blog or in the comments should be taken at your own risk.