G&T Terminal Packaging Co. v. Western Growers Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

G&T Terminal Packaging Co. v. Western Growers Ass'n

66 A.D.2d 563, 886 N.Y.S.2d 598

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 563 (G&T Terminal Packaging Co. v. Western Growers Ass'n) 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

G&T Terminal Packaging Co. v. Western Growers Ass'n, 66 A.D.2d 563, 886 N.Y.S.2d 598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2008, awarding defendants $32,306.50 in attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with their defense of this matter, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion by determining that plaintiffs’ conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (2) (see Pickens v Castro, 55 AD3d 443, 444 [2008]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ claim, courts take into consideration the entire dispute between the parties, not just the lawsuit in which sanctions are imposed (see Murray v National Broadcasting Co., 217 AD2d 651, 653 [1995]; Matter of Jemzura v Mugglin, 207 AD2d 645 [1994], appeal dismissed 84 NY2d 977 [1994]). If plaintiffs wished to litigate the underlying merits of the parties’ dispute, e.g., the quality of the produce sold by one of the defendants to one of the plaintiffs (see 56 AD3d 266 [2008], appeal dismissed 12 NY3d 729 [2009]), they should have pursued their federal appeals (see generally Jason v Chusid, 172 AD2d 172, 173 [1991], lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1008 [1991]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2008, awarding defendants $32,306.50 in attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with their defense of this matter, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion by determining that plaintiffs’ conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (2) (see Pickens v Castro, 55 AD3d 443, 444 [2008]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ claim, courts take into consideration the entire dispute between the parties, not just the lawsuit in which sanctions are imposed (see Murray v National Broadcasting Co., 217 AD2d 651, 653 [1995]; Matter of Jemzura v Mugglin, 207 AD2d 645 [1994], appeal dismissed 84 NY2d 977 [1994]). If plaintiffs wished to litigate the underlying merits of the parties’ dispute, e.g., the quality of the produce sold by one of the defendants to one of the plaintiffs (see 56 AD3d 266 [2008], appeal dismissed 12 NY3d 729 [2009]), they should have pursued their federal appeals (see generally Jason v Chusid, 172 AD2d 172, 173 [1991], lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1008 [1991]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 563, 886 N.Y.S.2d 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gt-terminal-packaging-co-v-western-growers-assn-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack