Honeycrest Holdings, Ltd. v. Integrated Brands, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Honeycrest Holdings, Ltd. v. Integrated Brands, Inc.

283 A.D.2d 398, 723 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4764

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 398 (Honeycrest Holdings, Ltd. v. Integrated Brands, Inc.) 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

Honeycrest Holdings, Ltd. v. Integrated Brands, Inc., 283 A.D.2d 398, 723 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, Lester Schwab Katz and Dwyer, L. L. P., and Luis Ras, attorneys for the plaintiffs, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated May 23, 2000, which, upon a prior order of the same court, dated March 25, 1998, sua sponte, directing a hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and after a hearing, directed that they each pay a sanction of $10,000 to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the sanctions are vacated.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions upon the appellants. Ritter, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, Lester Schwab Katz and Dwyer, L. L. P., and Luis Ras, attorneys for the plaintiffs, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated May 23, 2000, which, upon a prior order of the same court, dated March 25, 1998, sua sponte, directing a hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and after a hearing, directed that they each pay a sanction of $10,000 to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the sanctions are vacated.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions upon the appellants. Ritter, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 398, 723 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honeycrest-holdings-ltd-v-integrated-brands-inc-nyappdiv-2001.