Crandell v. Schutz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crandell v. Schutz

188 A.D.2d 635, 592 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14609

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 635 (Crandell v. Schutz) 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

Crandell v. Schutz, 188 A.D.2d 635, 592 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud and conspiracy, the defendant Robert N. Schütz appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated November 15, 1990, as denied that branch of his motion which was to impose sanctions on the plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The record does not support the appellant’s contention that the instant lawsuit was commenced against him "frivolous-fly]”, as that word is defined in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), or that the action constituted an extortionate abuse of process. In consequence, his application that sanctions be imposed on the plaintiff’s counsel for frivolous conduct in civil litigation was properly denied. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud and conspiracy, the defendant Robert N. Schütz appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated November 15, 1990, as denied that branch of his motion which was to impose sanctions on the plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The record does not support the appellant’s contention that the instant lawsuit was commenced against him "frivolous-fly]”, as that word is defined in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), or that the action constituted an extortionate abuse of process. In consequence, his application that sanctions be imposed on the plaintiff’s counsel for frivolous conduct in civil litigation was properly denied. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 635, 592 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crandell-v-schutz-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack