Fern v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fern v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc.

190 A.D.2d 515

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 515 (Fern v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc.) 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

Fern v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc., 190 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.), entered April 30, 1992, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ cross-motion for sanctions and directed defendants’ law firm to pay plaintiffs the sum of $400, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Court’s determination to award sanctions with respect to defendants’ meritless motion to reargue the grant to plaintiff of summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the first cause of action alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint is not inconsistent with its subsequent determination to allow discovery, on the limited issue of damages with respect to the first cause of action, and with respect to plaintiffs’ remaining claims. We also find that the order, which incorporated by reference the transcript of the IAS Court’s determination at oral argument, sufficiently set forth the reasons for the imposition of sanctions in accordance with 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and 130-1.2.

While the better practice is to set forth a detailed written explanation, implicit in the reasoned decision in this case was an evaluation of the amount of time and effort required to oppose defendants’ meritless motion, and a determination that it warranted reimbursement in the amount of $400. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.), entered April 30, 1992, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ cross-motion for sanctions and directed defendants’ law firm to pay plaintiffs the sum of $400, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Court’s determination to award sanctions with respect to defendants’ meritless motion to reargue the grant to plaintiff of summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the first cause of action alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint is not inconsistent with its subsequent determination to allow discovery, on the limited issue of damages with respect to the first cause of action, and with respect to plaintiffs’ remaining claims. We also find that the order, which incorporated by reference the transcript of the IAS Court’s determination at oral argument, sufficiently set forth the reasons for the imposition of sanctions in accordance with 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and 130-1.2.

While the better practice is to set forth a detailed written explanation, implicit in the reasoned decision in this case was an evaluation of the amount of time and effort required to oppose defendants’ meritless motion, and a determination that it warranted reimbursement in the amount of $400. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fern-v-brown-harris-stevens-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack