Beswick v. Beswick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beswick v. Beswick

281 A.D.2d 578, 722 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3092

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 578 (Beswick v. Beswick) 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

Beswick v. Beswick, 281 A.D.2d 578, 722 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated July 15, 1986, Arleen Lewis, attorney for the defendant, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated June 22, 2000, which, upon a [579]*579prior order of the same court, dated June 1, 2000, inter alia, denying the defendant’s motion, among other things, to terminate his maintenance objections and directing, sua sponte, a hearing to determine whether the motion was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and after a hearing, directed her to pay a sanction of $250 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly imposed a sanction against the appellant, who was the attorney representing the defendant on the underlying motion, inter alia, to terminate his maintenance obligations. The motion was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR part 130, as it was “completely without merit in law and [could not] be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated July 15, 1986, Arleen Lewis, attorney for the defendant, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated June 22, 2000, which, upon a [579]*579prior order of the same court, dated June 1, 2000, inter alia, denying the defendant’s motion, among other things, to terminate his maintenance objections and directing, sua sponte, a hearing to determine whether the motion was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and after a hearing, directed her to pay a sanction of $250 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly imposed a sanction against the appellant, who was the attorney representing the defendant on the underlying motion, inter alia, to terminate his maintenance obligations. The motion was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR part 130, as it was “completely without merit in law and [could not] be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 578, 722 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beswick-v-beswick-nyappdiv-2001.