Citibank (South Dakota), N. A. v. Morrissey

276 A.D.2d 963, 716 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10831
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 26, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 963 (Citibank (South Dakota), N. A. v. Morrissey) 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
Citibank (South Dakota), N. A. v. Morrissey, 276 A.D.2d 963, 716 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Graffeo, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court, Madison County (O’Brien, III, J.), dated June 18, 1999, which imposed sanctions on defendant’s counsel.

In this consumer debt collection action, plaintiff moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On behalf of defendant, its client, Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers, L. L. C. (hereinafter Capoccia) opposed the motion, asserting that plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment, and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an affidavit opposing the cross motion, plaintiff sought the imposition of sanctions against Capoccia. Supreme Court issued a decision granting plaintiff’s motion, imposing sanctions against Capoccia in the amount of $500 and directing plaintiffs counsel to submit an order. Before an order or judgment on the decision was signed or entered, defendant apparently filed for bankruptcy. As plaintiff concluded that the automatic stay of collection efforts against defendant attendant to the filing of a bankruptcy petition (see, 11 USC § 362) prevented the entry of an order of sanctions against Capoccia, it appears that plaintiff has not pursued such an order. Nevertheless, Capoccia purports to appeal from so much of Supreme Court’s decision that imposed sanctions.

As Supreme Court’s decision imposing sanctions has not yet been reduced to an order, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised in the briefs of the parties and the appeal must be dismissed (see, CPLR 5512 [a]; O’Fennell Corp. v O’Fennell’s of Pine Hill, 188 AD2d 981; Burometto v Town of Schodack, 85 AD2d 805, appeal dismissed 55 NY2d 1036).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

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

Related

Guernsey v. Guernsey
37 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Graziano v. County of Albany
12 A.D.3d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Hammerstein v. Henry Mountain Corp.
11 A.D.3d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 A.D.2d 963, 716 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-south-dakota-n-a-v-morrissey-nyappdiv-2000.