Grossman v. Dorff Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grossman v. Dorff Construction Co.

78 A.D.2d 607, 433 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13049

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 607 (Grossman v. Dorff Construction Co.) 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

Grossman v. Dorff Construction Co., 78 A.D.2d 607, 433 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 20, 1979, which, inter alia, directed plaintiffs attorney to [608]*608pay defendant Dorff Construction Co., Inc., $1,000 as costs and legal expenses, modified, on the law and on the facts, to strike the provision directing such payment, without costs, and otherwise affirmed. The failure of plaintiffs counsel to disclose that a prior oral application for a stay had . been denied (CPLR 2217, subd [b]) warrants criticism, even if, as is at least possible, the omission resulted from an error of judgment.. However, the record does not sustain Special Term’s direction to plaintiffs counsel to pay $1,000 to defendant "as costs and legal expenses.” Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Carro, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 20, 1979, which, inter alia, directed plaintiffs attorney to [608]*608pay defendant Dorff Construction Co., Inc., $1,000 as costs and legal expenses, modified, on the law and on the facts, to strike the provision directing such payment, without costs, and otherwise affirmed. The failure of plaintiffs counsel to disclose that a prior oral application for a stay had . been denied (CPLR 2217, subd [b]) warrants criticism, even if, as is at least possible, the omission resulted from an error of judgment.. However, the record does not sustain Special Term’s direction to plaintiffs counsel to pay $1,000 to defendant "as costs and legal expenses.” Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Carro, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 607, 433 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grossman-v-dorff-construction-co-nyappdiv-1980.