Avildsen v. Prystay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Avildsen v. Prystay

256 A.D.2d 160, 681 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13780

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 160 (Avildsen v. Prystay) 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

Avildsen v. Prystay, 256 A.D.2d 160, 681 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about May 29, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion to modify and correct the calculation of interest due, granted plaintiffs cross motion to vacate the judgment entered on February 24, 1998, and imposed sanctions in the amount of $500 upon defendant’s attorney, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s motion since the interest issue defendant wished to raise had previously been fully litigated and decided against her. The attempt by defense counsel to nonetheless relitigate the interest issue by filing a final judgment and then moving to modify the judgment and for a recalculation of interest was properly deserving of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Clearly, counsel’s actions were intentional and, in light of the circumstances of the case, lacked any legal or factual basis. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about May 29, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion to modify and correct the calculation of interest due, granted plaintiffs cross motion to vacate the judgment entered on February 24, 1998, and imposed sanctions in the amount of $500 upon defendant’s attorney, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s motion since the interest issue defendant wished to raise had previously been fully litigated and decided against her. The attempt by defense counsel to nonetheless relitigate the interest issue by filing a final judgment and then moving to modify the judgment and for a recalculation of interest was properly deserving of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Clearly, counsel’s actions were intentional and, in light of the circumstances of the case, lacked any legal or factual basis. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 160, 681 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avildsen-v-prystay-nyappdiv-1998.