E-Unit, LLC v. Saul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

E-Unit, LLC v. Saul

2017 NY Slip Op 6351, 153 A.D.3d 901, 58 N.Y.S.3d 863

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

DecidedAugust 30, 2017

Docket2015-06392

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6351 (E-Unit, LLC v. Saul) 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

E-Unit, LLC v. Saul, 2017 NY Slip Op 6351, 153 A.D.3d 901, 58 N.Y.S.3d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carolyn E. Demarest, J.), dated June 17, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to impose sanctions.

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

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their cross motion which was to impose a monetary sanction upon the plaintiffs and their attorney, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that either engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (see Finkelman v SBRE, LLC, 71 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2010]; Glenn v Annunziata, 53 AD3d *902 565, 566 [2008]).

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carolyn E. Demarest, J.), dated June 17, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to impose sanctions.

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

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their cross motion which was to impose a monetary sanction upon the plaintiffs and their attorney, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that either engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (see Finkelman v SBRE, LLC, 71 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2010]; Glenn v Annunziata, 53 AD3d *902 565, 566 [2008]).

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6351, 153 A.D.3d 901, 58 N.Y.S.3d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-unit-llc-v-saul-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack