Guarnier v. American Dredging Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Guarnier v. American Dredging Co.

588 N.E.2d 92, 79 N.Y.2d 846, 580 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 26

New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 16, 1992·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, without costs, and the sanction imposed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) vacated because the reviewable record of the conduct of the appellant attorney during jury selection, which prompted the imposition of the sanction over two months later, is devoid of the required basis for concluding that the conduct, however else it could be characterized, was "frivolous” within the meaning of the sanctions rule.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, without costs, and the sanction imposed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) vacated because the reviewable record of the conduct of the appellant attorney during jury selection, which prompted the imposition of the sanction over two months later, is devoid of the required basis for concluding that the conduct, however else it could be characterized, was "frivolous” within the meaning of the sanctions rule.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa.

Guarnier v. American Dredging Co., 588 N.E.2d 92, 79 N.Y.2d 846, 580 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 26 (N.Y. 1992).

Pincite

588 N.E.2d 92 (Guarnier v. American Dredging Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related