Jaffe v. Reinlieb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaffe v. Reinlieb

205 A.D.2d 442, 614 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedJune 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 442 (Jaffe v. Reinlieb) 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

Jaffe v. Reinlieb, 205 A.D.2d 442, 614 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 7, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them and awarded the moving defendants a sanction of $500 for frivolous motion practice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[443]*443Plaintiff seeks damages against the Goldstein firm and the individual partners of that firm for allegedly entering into a conspiracy to deprive him of his economic rights in a divorce action. However, the Goldstein defendants were representing his ex-wife in that action and there is absolutely no showing that these defendants entered into a conspiracy with plaintiff’s lawyer in the matrimonial action to deprive him of any rights. Accordingly, it was proper to grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the Goldstein defendants and to award them a sanction of $500 for frivolous motion practice arising from plaintiff’s motion seeking $900,000 to defray anticipated costs of discovery. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 7, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them and awarded the moving defendants a sanction of $500 for frivolous motion practice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[443]*443Plaintiff seeks damages against the Goldstein firm and the individual partners of that firm for allegedly entering into a conspiracy to deprive him of his economic rights in a divorce action. However, the Goldstein defendants were representing his ex-wife in that action and there is absolutely no showing that these defendants entered into a conspiracy with plaintiff’s lawyer in the matrimonial action to deprive him of any rights. Accordingly, it was proper to grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the Goldstein defendants and to award them a sanction of $500 for frivolous motion practice arising from plaintiff’s motion seeking $900,000 to defray anticipated costs of discovery. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 442, 614 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaffe-v-reinlieb-nyappdiv-1994.