Kissane v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kissane v. Wing

277 A.D.2d 125, 717 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12129

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 125 (Kissane v. Wing) 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

Kissane v. Wing, 277 A.D.2d 125, 717 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered February 22, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 2, 1999, which, to the extent appealable, denied so much of petitioner’s motion as sought renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under 42 USC § 1988 (b) because she did not establish that she had a viable claim under 42 USC § 1983, based on an official policy or practice of respondents (see, Matter of Auguste v Wing, 244 AD2d 252; Matter of Riley v Dowling, 221 AD2d 446). Nor has petitioner established that the court erred in determining that she was not entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to CPLR 8601 (see, Matter of Mitchell v Bane, 218 AD2d 537, 541, Iv dismissed 88 NY2d 1003).

Petitioner’s motion, to the extent that it sought renewal, was properly denied since the alleged newly-discovered misrepresentation was immaterial to the issue of petitioner’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered February 22, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 2, 1999, which, to the extent appealable, denied so much of petitioner’s motion as sought renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under 42 USC § 1988 (b) because she did not establish that she had a viable claim under 42 USC § 1983, based on an official policy or practice of respondents (see, Matter of Auguste v Wing, 244 AD2d 252; Matter of Riley v Dowling, 221 AD2d 446). Nor has petitioner established that the court erred in determining that she was not entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to CPLR 8601 (see, Matter of Mitchell v Bane, 218 AD2d 537, 541, Iv dismissed 88 NY2d 1003).

Petitioner’s motion, to the extent that it sought renewal, was properly denied since the alleged newly-discovered misrepresentation was immaterial to the issue of petitioner’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 125, 717 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kissane-v-wing-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack