Kandilaris v. Lindover

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kandilaris v. Lindover

251 A.D.2d 76, 674 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6499

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

DecidedJune 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 76 (Kandilaris v. Lindover) 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

Kandilaris v. Lindover, 251 A.D.2d 76, 674 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered July 3, 1996, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered May 30, 1996, imposing sanctions against plaintiffs attorneys in the amount of $10,000, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the amount of the sanctions to $1,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this action by plaintiff to be indemnified for loss sustained as a result of being held liable as guarantor of promissory notes made by defendant’s decedent, the IAS Court properly dismissed the action as barred by a six-year limitations period (CPLR 213 [2]) that began to run when plaintiffs property was sold at auction in satisfaction of her liability (see, State of New York v Stewart’s Ice Cream Co., 64 NY2d 83, 88-89), and not, as plaintiff argues, when her appellate remedies were exhausted. While sanctions were properly imposed against plaintiffs attorneys, we find the amount thereof to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered July 3, 1996, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered May 30, 1996, imposing sanctions against plaintiffs attorneys in the amount of $10,000, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the amount of the sanctions to $1,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this action by plaintiff to be indemnified for loss sustained as a result of being held liable as guarantor of promissory notes made by defendant’s decedent, the IAS Court properly dismissed the action as barred by a six-year limitations period (CPLR 213 [2]) that began to run when plaintiffs property was sold at auction in satisfaction of her liability (see, State of New York v Stewart’s Ice Cream Co., 64 NY2d 83, 88-89), and not, as plaintiff argues, when her appellate remedies were exhausted. While sanctions were properly imposed against plaintiffs attorneys, we find the amount thereof to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 76, 674 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kandilaris-v-lindover-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack