In re the Arbitration between Rachel's Trousseau, Inc. & Warshaw Woolen Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Rachel's Trousseau, Inc. & Warshaw Woolen Associates, Inc.

249 A.D.2d 148, 671 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4353

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

DecidedApril 21, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 148 (In re the Arbitration between Rachel's Trousseau, Inc. & Warshaw Woolen Associates, 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

In re the Arbitration between Rachel's Trousseau, Inc. & Warshaw Woolen Associates, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 148, 671 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered August 15, 1996, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s cross motion for sanctions and directed that petitioner and its attorney pay respondent and its attorney $4,000 and pay the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection $1,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Sanctions were properly imposed in an appropriate amount for frivolous persistence in advancing a completely meritless argument, without regard for proper procedure (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Petitioner’s attorney was present at oral argument and had an opportunity to argue in opposition to the cross motion for sanctions (see, Dubai Bank v Ayyub, 187 AD2d 373). The transcript sets forth the objectionable conduct, the reason it was found to be frivolous and an explanation for the sanctions imposed (see, Jackson v New York City Tr. Auth., 227 AD2d 181). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered August 15, 1996, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s cross motion for sanctions and directed that petitioner and its attorney pay respondent and its attorney $4,000 and pay the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection $1,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Sanctions were properly imposed in an appropriate amount for frivolous persistence in advancing a completely meritless argument, without regard for proper procedure (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Petitioner’s attorney was present at oral argument and had an opportunity to argue in opposition to the cross motion for sanctions (see, Dubai Bank v Ayyub, 187 AD2d 373). The transcript sets forth the objectionable conduct, the reason it was found to be frivolous and an explanation for the sanctions imposed (see, Jackson v New York City Tr. Auth., 227 AD2d 181). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 148, 671 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-rachels-trousseau-inc-warshaw-woolen-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack