Braverman v. Braverman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braverman v. Braverman

2017 NY Slip Op 578, 146 A.D.3d 704, 45 N.Y.S.3d 473

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 31, 2017·No. 2590N 306221/11·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered September 11, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the guardian ad litem’s motion for sanctions against nonparty David A. Mayer pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and directed Mayer to pay $1,500 to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 did not constitute a “clear abuse of discretion” (Pickens v Castro, 55 AD3d 443, 444 [1st Dept 2008]). The court’s resolution of the motion finds support in the totality of the circumstances surrounding appellant’s conduct, including the timing of appellant’s filing of a notice of appearance so as to delay or prolong resolution of this matter. The parties in this appeal stipulated to a supplemental record that includes a subsequent decision of the motion court disqualifying appellant from serving as cocounsel for defendant. We note that the factual findings in that decision buttress the court’s earlier decision to impose sanctions.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered September 11, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the guardian ad litem’s motion for sanctions against nonparty David A. Mayer pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and directed Mayer to pay $1,500 to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 did not constitute a “clear abuse of discretion” (Pickens v Castro, 55 AD3d 443, 444 [1st Dept 2008]). The court’s resolution of the motion finds support in the totality of the circumstances surrounding appellant’s conduct, including the timing of appellant’s filing of a notice of appearance so as to delay or prolong resolution of this matter. The parties in this appeal stipulated to a supplemental record that includes a subsequent decision of the motion court disqualifying appellant from serving as cocounsel for defendant. We note that the factual findings in that decision buttress the court’s earlier decision to impose sanctions.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli and Feinman, JJ.

Braverman v. Braverman, 2017 NY Slip Op 578, 146 A.D.3d 704, 45 N.Y.S.3d 473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 578 (Braverman v. Braverman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related