Cain v. Segall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cain v. Segall

40 A.D.3d 675, 833 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedMay 8, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 675 (Cain v. Segall) 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

Cain v. Segall, 40 A.D.3d 675, 833 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for battery, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated May 2, 2006, which denied, without a hearing, his motion to impose costs and sanctions on the plaintiff and/or her attorney for engaging in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[676]*676Contrary to the defendant’s contentions on appeal, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without a hearing, his motion to impose costs and sanctions on the plaintiff and/or her attorney for engaging in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (cf. Hampton v Hampton, 261 AD2d 362 [1999]). The record does not support the defendant’s argument that the prosecution of this action to recover damages for civil battery, although ultimately unsuccessful, was frivolous (see generally Wende C. v United Methodist Church, N.Y. W. Area, 4 NY3d 293 [2005]; Laurie Marie M. v Jeffrey T.M., 159 AD2d 52 [1990], affd 77 NY2d 981 [1991]; PJI 3:3 [2006 Supp]). Spolzino, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for battery, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated May 2, 2006, which denied, without a hearing, his motion to impose costs and sanctions on the plaintiff and/or her attorney for engaging in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[676]*676Contrary to the defendant’s contentions on appeal, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without a hearing, his motion to impose costs and sanctions on the plaintiff and/or her attorney for engaging in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (cf. Hampton v Hampton, 261 AD2d 362 [1999]). The record does not support the defendant’s argument that the prosecution of this action to recover damages for civil battery, although ultimately unsuccessful, was frivolous (see generally Wende C. v United Methodist Church, N.Y. W. Area, 4 NY3d 293 [2005]; Laurie Marie M. v Jeffrey T.M., 159 AD2d 52 [1990], affd 77 NY2d 981 [1991]; PJI 3:3 [2006 Supp]). Spolzino, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 675, 833 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cain-v-segall-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack