Hill v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hill v. Fisher

203 A.D.2d 328, 610 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3647

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 11, 1994·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated April 13, 1992, as granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and denied the defendants’ application for the imposition of costs and sanctions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ application for the imposition of costs and sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated April 13, 1992, as granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and denied the defendants’ application for the imposition of costs and sanctions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ application for the imposition of costs and sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Hill v. Fisher, 203 A.D.2d 328, 610 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 328 (Hill v. Fisher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related