Brock v. Wagner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brock v. Wagner

283 A.D.2d 535, 725 N.Y.S.2d 216, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5306

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

DecidedMay 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 535 (Brock v. Wagner) 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

Brock v. Wagner, 283 A.D.2d 535, 725 N.Y.S.2d 216, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages based on medical malpractice, Physicians’ Reciprocal Insurers purports to appeal as of right, as limited by its brief, from so much of a sua sponte order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated July 12, 2000, as imposed costs and sanctions against it pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal and leave to appeal is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the imposition of sanctions and costs against the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 is vacated.

The Supreme Court had no authority to impose sanctions or costs against appellant Physicians’ Reciprocal Insurers pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, since it is neither a party to this action nor an attorney for a party (see, CPLR 8303-a [b]; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Saastomoinen v Pagano, 278 AD2d 218; see also, Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1). Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages based on medical malpractice, Physicians’ Reciprocal Insurers purports to appeal as of right, as limited by its brief, from so much of a sua sponte order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated July 12, 2000, as imposed costs and sanctions against it pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal and leave to appeal is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the imposition of sanctions and costs against the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 is vacated.

The Supreme Court had no authority to impose sanctions or costs against appellant Physicians’ Reciprocal Insurers pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, since it is neither a party to this action nor an attorney for a party (see, CPLR 8303-a [b]; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Saastomoinen v Pagano, 278 AD2d 218; see also, Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1). Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 535, 725 N.Y.S.2d 216, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-wagner-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack