Hilley v. Sanabria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hilley v. Sanabria

12 A.D.3d 1188, 784 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14040

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 1188 (Hilley v. Sanabria) 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

Hilley v. Sanabria, 12 A.D.3d 1188, 784 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Anthony F. Shaheen, J.), entered December 29, 2003 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, [1189]*1189directed plaintiff’s attorney to pay defendants Michelle A. Tartaglia and Anthony F. Tartaglia the sum of $500 to cover the cost of the late cancellation of a medical examination of plaintiff.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to plaintiffs contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering plaintiff’s attorney to pay defendants Michelle A. Tartaglia and Anthony F. Tartaglia the sum of $500 “to cover the cost of the late cancellation of the prior medical examination” of plaintiff (see generally CPLR 3126; Adams v Deloreto, 272 AD2d 875 [2000]; Flynn v Debonis, 246 AD2d 852, 853 [1998]). The contentions of plaintiffs attorney that the order constituted a sanction under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and that the court did not comply with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 are without merit. Remedies within the court’s discretion pursuant to CPLR 3126 are different from remedies pursuant to the regulations (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3126:11), and here the relief sought was under CPLR article 31. Present— Pigott, Jr., PJ., Pine, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Anthony F. Shaheen, J.), entered December 29, 2003 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, [1189]*1189directed plaintiff’s attorney to pay defendants Michelle A. Tartaglia and Anthony F. Tartaglia the sum of $500 to cover the cost of the late cancellation of a medical examination of plaintiff.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to plaintiffs contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering plaintiff’s attorney to pay defendants Michelle A. Tartaglia and Anthony F. Tartaglia the sum of $500 “to cover the cost of the late cancellation of the prior medical examination” of plaintiff (see generally CPLR 3126; Adams v Deloreto, 272 AD2d 875 [2000]; Flynn v Debonis, 246 AD2d 852, 853 [1998]). The contentions of plaintiffs attorney that the order constituted a sanction under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and that the court did not comply with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 are without merit. Remedies within the court’s discretion pursuant to CPLR 3126 are different from remedies pursuant to the regulations (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3126:11), and here the relief sought was under CPLR article 31. Present— Pigott, Jr., PJ., Pine, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 1188, 784 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilley-v-sanabria-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack