Barquet v. Rojas-Castillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barquet v. Rojas-Castillo

216 A.D.2d 463, 628 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6395

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 1995·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding, Liana Rojas-Castillo appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered March 22, 1994, as granted the Law Guardian’s cross motion for the imposition of financial sanctions upon her attorney for engaging in frivolous conduct.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the cross motion is denied.

Inasmuch as the Law Guardian failed to serve the appellant with a notice of cross motion (see, CPLR 2215) demanding the imposition of financial sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, the Family Court erred in providing for such relief in the order appealed from (see, Tulchin Assocs. v Vignola, 186 AD2d 183, 186; Cannizzaro v Cannizzaro, 186 AD2d 776, 778; Saba v Utica Fire Ins. Co., 176 AD2d 1212; Marsico v Southland Corp., 148 AD2d 503, 506; Vanek v Mercy Hosp., 135 AD2d 707). Pizzuto, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding, Liana Rojas-Castillo appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered March 22, 1994, as granted the Law Guardian’s cross motion for the imposition of financial sanctions upon her attorney for engaging in frivolous conduct.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the cross motion is denied.

Inasmuch as the Law Guardian failed to serve the appellant with a notice of cross motion (see, CPLR 2215) demanding the imposition of financial sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, the Family Court erred in providing for such relief in the order appealed from (see, Tulchin Assocs. v Vignola, 186 AD2d 183, 186; Cannizzaro v Cannizzaro, 186 AD2d 776, 778; Saba v Utica Fire Ins. Co., 176 AD2d 1212; Marsico v Southland Corp., 148 AD2d 503, 506; Vanek v Mercy Hosp., 135 AD2d 707). Pizzuto, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Barquet v. Rojas-Castillo, 216 A.D.2d 463, 628 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

216 A.D.2d 463 (Barquet v. Rojas-Castillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related