Brady v. Blittner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brady v. Blittner

268 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 69

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 244 (Brady v. Blittner) 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

Brady v. Blittner, 268 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 69 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 9, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, imposed sanctions upon plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $10,000, based upon counsel’s frivolous conduct in prosecuting the underlying litigation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As the record discloses that the instant action against defendants Carlyle Realty and Murray Silver was commenced by plaintiffs’ counsel without legal basis, the motion court’s imposition of sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel constituted a proper exercise of discretion (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]). Bearing in mind that there is no requirement that the procedural dictates of 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 be followed “in any rigid fashion” (Benefield v New York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 167, 168), we find that the motion court sufficiently set forth the conduct and rationale supporting its imposition of sanctions and find the amount of the penalty to have been appropriate. We have considered the remaining arguments raised by plaintiffs’ counsel and find them unavailing. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 9, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, imposed sanctions upon plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $10,000, based upon counsel’s frivolous conduct in prosecuting the underlying litigation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As the record discloses that the instant action against defendants Carlyle Realty and Murray Silver was commenced by plaintiffs’ counsel without legal basis, the motion court’s imposition of sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel constituted a proper exercise of discretion (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]). Bearing in mind that there is no requirement that the procedural dictates of 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 be followed “in any rigid fashion” (Benefield v New York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 167, 168), we find that the motion court sufficiently set forth the conduct and rationale supporting its imposition of sanctions and find the amount of the penalty to have been appropriate. We have considered the remaining arguments raised by plaintiffs’ counsel and find them unavailing. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-blittner-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack