Chase v. Willis

199 A.D.2d 455, 608 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12313
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 455 (Chase v. Willis) 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
Chase v. Willis, 199 A.D.2d 455, 608 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated August 4, 1991, which (1) [456]*456denied his motion to resettle a prior order of the same court, entered March 17, 1990, and (2) granted the defendants’ cross motion for an award of costs payable by the plaintiffs attorney to the defendants’ attorney for the latter’s reasonable attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the plaintiffs motion to resettle the order entered March 17, 1990 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from so much of the order as denied the plaintiffs motion to resettle a prior order of the same court entered March 17, 1990, must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying resettlement of the decretal paragraphs of another order or judgment (see, Board of Educ. v Wieder, 132 AD2d 409, affd 72 NY2d 174; Men’s World Outlet v Steinberg, 101 AD2d 854).

We further conclude that the motion for a resettled order "was completely without merit in law or fact” and thus frivolous pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendants’ cross motion for an award of costs payable by the plaintiffs attorney to the defendants’ attorney for the latter’s reasonable attorney’s fees. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Furey v. Furey
230 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Halliday v. Halliday
218 A.D.2d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re Rodriguez
201 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 A.D.2d 455, 608 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-willis-nyappdiv-1993.