Bank of New York v. Carlucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of New York v. Carlucci

289 A.D.2d 350, 735 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12256

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 350 (Bank of New York v. Carlucci) 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

Bank of New York v. Carlucci, 289 A.D.2d 350, 735 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 31, 2000, which denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate an amended judgment entered December 3, 1999, and to impose a sanction on the plaintiffs attorney for frivolous conduct.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to vacate the amended judgment and for related relief is dismissed as academic (see, Bank of N. Y. v Carlucci, 289 AD2d 349 [decided herewith]), without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was to impose a sanction on the plaintiffs attorney is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to [351]*351impose a sanction on the plaintiffs attorney. Altman, J. P., Smith, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 31, 2000, which denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate an amended judgment entered December 3, 1999, and to impose a sanction on the plaintiffs attorney for frivolous conduct.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to vacate the amended judgment and for related relief is dismissed as academic (see, Bank of N. Y. v Carlucci, 289 AD2d 349 [decided herewith]), without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was to impose a sanction on the plaintiffs attorney is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to [351]*351impose a sanction on the plaintiffs attorney. Altman, J. P., Smith, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 350, 735 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-v-carlucci-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack