Grant v. Heit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant v. Heit

242 A.D.2d 247, 662 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8476

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

DecidedAugust 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 247 (Grant v. Heit) 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

Grant v. Heit, 242 A.D.2d 247, 662 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County [248]*248(Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about March 25, 1996, which confirmed, in part, the Special Referee’s report and imposed sanctions of $500 each on defendant and her attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s findings, including those concerning the value of the parties’ respective contributions in satisfying partnership liabilities after dissolution, are substantially supported by the record and should not be disturbed (see, Barr v Barr, 232 AD2d 316). The sanctions imposed on defendant, an attorney, for signing her attorney’s name on two affirmations, and on defendant’s attorney for permitting this violation of CPLR 2106, are appropriate. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County [248]*248(Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about March 25, 1996, which confirmed, in part, the Special Referee’s report and imposed sanctions of $500 each on defendant and her attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s findings, including those concerning the value of the parties’ respective contributions in satisfying partnership liabilities after dissolution, are substantially supported by the record and should not be disturbed (see, Barr v Barr, 232 AD2d 316). The sanctions imposed on defendant, an attorney, for signing her attorney’s name on two affirmations, and on defendant’s attorney for permitting this violation of CPLR 2106, are appropriate. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 247, 662 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-heit-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack