New York Legal Trivia
March 19, 2007
I'm adding a new feature to Sui Generis--a weekly Tuesday post which will consist of a New York legal trivia question. The bi-weekly "Define That Term!" feature will now appear on Sundays and Thursdays.
Today is the first trivia question--on a Monday this time only--just to kick things off.
Today's question:
What is the minimum number of judges justices that must sit on an Appellate Division panel during any given court session?
And, as with the "Define That Term!" feature, educated guesses only please!
three
Posted by: David M. Gottlieb, Esq. | March 19, 2007 at 08:44 PM
zero. They're all justices. Sometimes I just crack myself up.
Posted by: Scott Greenfield | March 20, 2007 at 07:19 AM
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? ;)
Posted by: NBlack | March 20, 2007 at 08:43 AM
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.
Posted by: slickdpdx | March 20, 2007 at 04:25 PM
I'm the smartest man alive!
Posted by: David M. Gottlieb, Esq. | March 20, 2007 at 06:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Scott Greenfield | March 21, 2007 at 05:53 AM
Ouch!
Posted by: slickdpdx | March 21, 2007 at 11:44 AM
gotta be three, although I've never seen it. Seems to me I've seen four....
Posted by: Bill Altreuter | March 21, 2007 at 03:39 PM
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!
Posted by: NBlack | March 21, 2007 at 09:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Scott Greenfield | March 22, 2007 at 06:04 AM