Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Zangiacomi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Zangiacomi

225 A.D.2d 515, 638 N.Y.2d 773, 638 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1919

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 4, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions against the plaintiffs counsel. The Supreme Court imposed sanctions on the ground that in making an application for a default judgment, counsel failed to comply with the technical requirements of CPLR 3215 (f) and (g) (3). Although the court may have warned counsel in previous unrelated actions about the necessity of complying with these sections, we nevertheless find that such conduct does not amount to "[fjrivolous conduct” as defined by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions against the plaintiffs counsel. The Supreme Court imposed sanctions on the ground that in making an application for a default judgment, counsel failed to comply with the technical requirements of CPLR 3215 (f) and (g) (3). Although the court may have warned counsel in previous unrelated actions about the necessity of complying with these sections, we nevertheless find that such conduct does not amount to "[fjrivolous conduct” as defined by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Zangiacomi, 225 A.D.2d 515, 638 N.Y.2d 773, 638 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

225 A.D.2d 515 (Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Zangiacomi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related