1051 Enterprises, Inc. v. DeBeer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1051 Enterprises, Inc. v. DeBeer

230 A.D.2d 731, 646 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8301

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 5, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 A.D.2d 731 (1051 Enterprises, Inc. v. DeBeer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1051 Enterprises, Inc. v. DeBeer, 230 A.D.2d 731, 646 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to compel pre-action disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c), Roy DeBeer, James Sweeney, Mary Horgan, Rick Rosenspire, Illia Howe, Edmund Kelly, James Caruana, James Wynne, Kathleen Griffin Lehman, and Davis Weiss appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated March 22, 1995, as denied their cross motion for costs, sanctions, and attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a, 76-a, and CPLR 8303-a.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion for costs, sanctions, and attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a and 76-a, and CPLR 8303-a, and ordered a hearing on the appellants’ claim for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, since the latter statute applies to abuse of discovery motions such as the pre-action discovery motion herein (see, Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis, 155 Misc 2d 894, 899, affd 198 AD2d 63; Alexander, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 8308-a, 1997 Pocket Part, at 55; see generally, Matter of Gordon v Marrone, 202 AD2d 104, 111").

O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a proceeding to compel pre-action disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c), Roy DeBeer, James Sweeney, Mary Horgan, Rick Rosenspire, Illia Howe, Edmund Kelly, James Caruana, James Wynne, Kathleen Griffin Lehman, and Davis Weiss appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated March 22, 1995, as denied their cross motion for costs, sanctions, and attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a, 76-a, and CPLR 8303-a.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion for costs, sanctions, and attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a and 76-a, and CPLR 8303-a, and ordered a hearing on the appellants’ claim for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, since the latter statute applies to abuse of discovery motions such as the pre-action discovery motion herein (see, Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis, 155 Misc 2d 894, 899, affd 198 AD2d 63; Alexander, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 8308-a, 1997 Pocket Part, at 55; see generally, Matter of Gordon v Marrone, 202 AD2d 104, 111").

O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D.2d 731, 646 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1051-enterprises-inc-v-debeer-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack