First National Bank of Rochester v. Volpe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

First National Bank of Rochester v. Volpe

219 A.D.2d 867, 632 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11012

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D.2d 867 (First National Bank of Rochester v. Volpe) 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

First National Bank of Rochester v. Volpe, 219 A.D.2d 867, 632 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this action to foreclose a mortgage and enforce notes arid guarantees given by defendants to plaintiff, James J. Volpe (defendant) and his counsel appeal from a judgment granting plaintiffs request for [868]*868imposition of sanctions of $2,492 against defendant’s counsel for his frivolous conduct in moving for an order of preclusion prior to the date on which the bill of particulars was due. Because the conduct of defendant’s counsel was without basis in law or fact (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [i]), the imposition of sanctions was a proper exercise of Supreme Court’s discretion. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J. — Sanctions.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this action to foreclose a mortgage and enforce notes arid guarantees given by defendants to plaintiff, James J. Volpe (defendant) and his counsel appeal from a judgment granting plaintiffs request for [868]*868imposition of sanctions of $2,492 against defendant’s counsel for his frivolous conduct in moving for an order of preclusion prior to the date on which the bill of particulars was due. Because the conduct of defendant’s counsel was without basis in law or fact (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [i]), the imposition of sanctions was a proper exercise of Supreme Court’s discretion. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J. — Sanctions.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 867, 632 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-of-rochester-v-volpe-nyappdiv-1995.