Letterese v. Dashman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Letterese v. Dashman

289 A.D.2d 378, 734 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12250

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 378 (Letterese v. Dashman) 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

Letterese v. Dashman, 289 A.D.2d 378, 734 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enjoin the defendant from releasing certain confidential information, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated July 21, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to impose a sanction upon them pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and imposed a sanction of $750.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the record amply supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the postjudgment motion to compel the deposition of the defendant constituted frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1) in that it was “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, [379]*379modification or reversal of existing law” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; see, Mancini v Mancini, 269 AD2d 366; Walton v Markan, 262 AD2d 479). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction against the appellants (see, Antoine v Gulmi, 250 AD2d 558; see generally, Intercontinental Credit Corp. Div. v Roth, 78 NY2d 306). H. Miller, J. P., Townes, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to enjoin the defendant from releasing certain confidential information, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated July 21, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to impose a sanction upon them pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and imposed a sanction of $750.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the record amply supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the postjudgment motion to compel the deposition of the defendant constituted frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1) in that it was “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, [379]*379modification or reversal of existing law” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; see, Mancini v Mancini, 269 AD2d 366; Walton v Markan, 262 AD2d 479). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction against the appellants (see, Antoine v Gulmi, 250 AD2d 558; see generally, Intercontinental Credit Corp. Div. v Roth, 78 NY2d 306). H. Miller, J. P., Townes, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 378, 734 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/letterese-v-dashman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack