Beckenstein v. Ostro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beckenstein v. Ostro

250 A.D.2d 561, 671 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4890

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

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 561 (Beckenstein v. Ostro) 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

Beckenstein v. Ostro, 250 A.D.2d 561, 671 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Scott Ostro and his attorney, Eric B. Schultz, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated March 6, 1997, as imposed sanctions against them.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the conduct of the defendant Scott Ostro and his attorney was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and in imposing sanctions against them (see, Matter of Mancini v Mancini, 245 AD2d 519; Somma v Wehrle, 245 AD2d 284). Miller, J. P., Joy, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Scott Ostro and his attorney, Eric B. Schultz, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated March 6, 1997, as imposed sanctions against them.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the conduct of the defendant Scott Ostro and his attorney was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and in imposing sanctions against them (see, Matter of Mancini v Mancini, 245 AD2d 519; Somma v Wehrle, 245 AD2d 284). Miller, J. P., Joy, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 561, 671 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckenstein-v-ostro-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack