Connery v. Sultan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connery v. Sultan

2016 NY Slip Op 8165, 145 A.D.3d 458, 42 N.Y.S.3d 160

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2016

Docket2381 401336/05

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8165 (Connery v. Sultan) 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

Connery v. Sultan, 2016 NY Slip Op 8165, 145 A.D.3d 458, 42 N.Y.S.3d 160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered April 26, 2016, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion to direct the Department of Finance to turn over to plaintiffs funds that defendant had deposited to stay the enforcement of a judgment, and denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s argument that the motion court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation of settlement is barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v Flomenhaft, 137 AD3d 547 [1st Dept 2016]). In a prior appeal, this Court concluded that the court had jurisdiction (Connery v Sultan, 126 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2015], lv dismissed 26 NY3d 991 [2015]). The documents upon which defendant now claims to rely in support of this argument do not establish the existence of a fully executed stipulation of discontinuance, and, in any event, were in defendant’s possession at the time of the prior appeal.

*459 Given that, as the motion court observed, both sides in this long and contentious litigation have pursued aggressive tactics and maintained conflicting positions, we conclude that sanctions against defendant are not appropriate.

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Saxe, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered April 26, 2016, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion to direct the Department of Finance to turn over to plaintiffs funds that defendant had deposited to stay the enforcement of a judgment, and denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s argument that the motion court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation of settlement is barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v Flomenhaft, 137 AD3d 547 [1st Dept 2016]). In a prior appeal, this Court concluded that the court had jurisdiction (Connery v Sultan, 126 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2015], lv dismissed 26 NY3d 991 [2015]). The documents upon which defendant now claims to rely in support of this argument do not establish the existence of a fully executed stipulation of discontinuance, and, in any event, were in defendant’s possession at the time of the prior appeal.

*459 Given that, as the motion court observed, both sides in this long and contentious litigation have pursued aggressive tactics and maintained conflicting positions, we conclude that sanctions against defendant are not appropriate.

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Saxe, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8165, 145 A.D.3d 458, 42 N.Y.S.3d 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connery-v-sultan-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack