In re Dorothy N.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dorothy N.

61 A.D.3d 871, 876 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedApril 21, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 871 (In re Dorothy 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

In re Dorothy N., 61 A.D.3d 871, 876 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated May 8, 2008, as granted that branch of the cross petition of Dorothy N. which was for costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) and directed her to pay the sum of $10,500 to Dorothy N.’s attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that the petitioner’s conduct in commencing and maintaining the instant guardianship proceeding was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), thus warranting the imposition of costs (see e.g. Matter of Elizabeth R., 228 AD2d 445 [1996]; Matter of Eastrin, 285 AD2d 646 [2001]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated May 8, 2008, as granted that branch of the cross petition of Dorothy N. which was for costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) and directed her to pay the sum of $10,500 to Dorothy N.’s attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that the petitioner’s conduct in commencing and maintaining the instant guardianship proceeding was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), thus warranting the imposition of costs (see e.g. Matter of Elizabeth R., 228 AD2d 445 [1996]; Matter of Eastrin, 285 AD2d 646 [2001]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 871, 876 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dorothy-n-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack