Dime Savings Bank v. Glavey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dime Savings Bank v. Glavey

309 A.D.2d 528, 765 N.Y.S.2d 492, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10362

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 528 (Dime Savings Bank v. Glavey) 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

Dime Savings Bank v. Glavey, 309 A.D.2d 528, 765 N.Y.S.2d 492, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered May 31, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for permission to bring suit against the receiver and granted the cross motion of plaintiff to, inter alia, impose a monetary sanction upon defendant for frivolous motion practice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant failed [529]*529to show sufficient justification to bring suit against the receiver. We note in particular that the “informal accounting” ufion which defendant premises her claims of wrongdoing by the receiver is not included in the record. In addition, since defendant signed three separate stipulations, in which she agreed to accept the receiver’s informal accounting, she may not now be heard to complain. The record supports the imposition of sanctions. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered May 31, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for permission to bring suit against the receiver and granted the cross motion of plaintiff to, inter alia, impose a monetary sanction upon defendant for frivolous motion practice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant failed [529]*529to show sufficient justification to bring suit against the receiver. We note in particular that the “informal accounting” ufion which defendant premises her claims of wrongdoing by the receiver is not included in the record. In addition, since defendant signed three separate stipulations, in which she agreed to accept the receiver’s informal accounting, she may not now be heard to complain. The record supports the imposition of sanctions. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 528, 765 N.Y.S.2d 492, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-v-glavey-nyappdiv-2003.