Lucombe v. Fleurant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lucombe v. Fleurant

198 A.D.2d 269, 604 N.Y.S.2d 813

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 269 (Lucombe v. Fleurant) 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

Lucombe v. Fleurant, 198 A.D.2d 269, 604 N.Y.S.2d 813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover, inter alia, damages for personal injuries, Louis J. Castellano, Jr., and Paul F. Callahan, attorneys for the defendant Steve Mercier, appeal (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated July 15, 1991, as imposed sanctions against them, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 8, 1991, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 15, 1991, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 8, 1991, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 8, 1991, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing sanctions against the attorneys for the defendant Steve Mercier (see, CPLR 3126; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Thompson, J. P„ Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover, inter alia, damages for personal injuries, Louis J. Castellano, Jr., and Paul F. Callahan, attorneys for the defendant Steve Mercier, appeal (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated July 15, 1991, as imposed sanctions against them, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 8, 1991, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 15, 1991, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 8, 1991, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 8, 1991, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing sanctions against the attorneys for the defendant Steve Mercier (see, CPLR 3126; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Thompson, J. P„ Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 269, 604 N.Y.S.2d 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucombe-v-fleurant-nyappdiv-1993.