In re Eastrin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Eastrin

285 A.D.2d 646, 728 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7686

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

DecidedJuly 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 646 (In re Eastrin) 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 Eastrin, 285 A.D.2d 646, 728 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.33 for the final accounting of Helene Renee Puchall as Guardian of the Person and Property of Hyman S. Eastrin, the objectant Sylvia Berck appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Rossetti, J.), entered January 14, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the Guardian’s motion to judically settle her final account, and to impose sanctions against the objectant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the appellant’s speculative and unfounded objections were filed with the primary purpose of delaying the proceeding and harassing the Guardian (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]; Matter of Sud v Sud, 227 AD2d 319). Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions against the appellant for engaging in frivolous conduct (see, Matter of Elizabeth R., 228 AD2d 445; Matter of Rosenhain, 222 AD2d 745).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.33 for the final accounting of Helene Renee Puchall as Guardian of the Person and Property of Hyman S. Eastrin, the objectant Sylvia Berck appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Rossetti, J.), entered January 14, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the Guardian’s motion to judically settle her final account, and to impose sanctions against the objectant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the appellant’s speculative and unfounded objections were filed with the primary purpose of delaying the proceeding and harassing the Guardian (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]; Matter of Sud v Sud, 227 AD2d 319). Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions against the appellant for engaging in frivolous conduct (see, Matter of Elizabeth R., 228 AD2d 445; Matter of Rosenhain, 222 AD2d 745).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 646, 728 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eastrin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack