Cinque v. Schieferstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cinque v. Schieferstein

5 A.D.3d 198, 772 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2565

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 198 (Cinque v. Schieferstein) 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

Cinque v. Schieferstein, 5 A.D.3d 198, 772 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 27, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded defendant $8,079.55 as the reasonable value of legal services rendered in responding to a prior appeal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award of costs for the prior appeal (292 AD2d 197 [2002]), under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, was not merely for defending an award of sanctions, but also for preserving the dismissal of plaintiff’s baseless action (compare Henriques v Boitano, 304 AD2d 467 [2003]).

We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Williams, Lerner and Marlow, 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 June 27, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded defendant $8,079.55 as the reasonable value of legal services rendered in responding to a prior appeal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award of costs for the prior appeal (292 AD2d 197 [2002]), under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, was not merely for defending an award of sanctions, but also for preserving the dismissal of plaintiff’s baseless action (compare Henriques v Boitano, 304 AD2d 467 [2003]).

We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 198, 772 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cinque-v-schieferstein-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack