Civitano v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Civitano v. City of Yonkers

204 A.D.2d 677, 614 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5741

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

DecidedMay 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 677 (Civitano v. City of Yonkers) 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

Civitano v. City of Yonkers, 204 A.D.2d 677, 614 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the City of Yonkers, the City of Yonkers Police Department, Andrew Lane, and Clifton Brengel appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated March 31, 1992, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an award of attorney’s fees and costs based on the appellants’ frivolous conduct.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[678]*678The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing costs and attorney’s fees on the appellants herein, where the appellants had repeatedly engaged in "obstructionist” tactics designed to harass the plaintiff and delay her case (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 personal injuries, the City of Yonkers, the City of Yonkers Police Department, Andrew Lane, and Clifton Brengel appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated March 31, 1992, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an award of attorney’s fees and costs based on the appellants’ frivolous conduct.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[678]*678The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing costs and attorney’s fees on the appellants herein, where the appellants had repeatedly engaged in "obstructionist” tactics designed to harass the plaintiff and delay her case (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 677, 614 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/civitano-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-1994.