Maroulis v. 64th Street-Third Avenue Associates

New York Court of Appeals

Maroulis v. 64th Street-Third Avenue Associates

567 N.E.2d 978, 77 N.Y.2d 831, 566 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 82

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by237 cases

This text of 567 N.E.2d 978 (Maroulis v. 64th Street-Third Avenue Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maroulis v. 64th Street-Third Avenue Associates, 567 N.E.2d 978, 77 N.Y.2d 831, 566 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 82 (N.Y. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Cross motion for sanctions granted and sanctions in the amount of $2,500 imposed upon David Berg, Esq. This current motion for leave to appeal from a nonfinal order in this action involving an accounting for a partnership dissolved in 1975 is frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a) and (c). No reasonable argument can be made that the current motion is within the jurisdiction of this Court. The persistent course of party-attorney Berg’s frivolous and meritless motion practice in this Court, including motions clearly outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and repetitive motions for reargument, constitutes a strategy undertaken primarily to delay resolution of the litigation (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). This abuse of the judicial process supports the imposition of sanctions.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Cross motion for sanctions granted and sanctions in the amount of $2,500 imposed upon David Berg, Esq. This current motion for leave to appeal from a nonfinal order in this action involving an accounting for a partnership dissolved in 1975 is frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a) and (c). No reasonable argument can be made that the current motion is within the jurisdiction of this Court. The persistent course of party-attorney Berg’s frivolous and meritless motion practice in this Court, including motions clearly outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and repetitive motions for reargument, constitutes a strategy undertaken primarily to delay resolution of the litigation (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). This abuse of the judicial process supports the imposition of sanctions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 N.E.2d 978, 77 N.Y.2d 831, 566 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maroulis-v-64th-street-third-avenue-associates-ny-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack