Mazarakis v. Bronxville Glen I Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mazarakis v. Bronxville Glen I Ass'n

229 A.D.2d 661, 644 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7539

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D.2d 661 (Mazarakis v. Bronxville Glen I Ass'n) 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

Mazarakis v. Bronxville Glen I Ass'n, 229 A.D.2d 661, 644 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Burrows, J.), entered April 11, 1995 in Westchester County, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiffs sanctions in the form of counsel fees against certain defendants.

At issue in this appeal is whether Supreme Court erred in imposing sanctions upon certain defendants for their deliberate dilatory conduct during discovery. We conclude that Supreme Court’s award of sanctions should not be disturbed as it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretionary authority under CPLR 3126, which is separate and distinct from the authority granted by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see, Taub v Wulwick, 168 AD2d 492, 493; see also, Siegel, NY Prac §§ 367, 414A, at 540, 631 [2d ed]).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Casey, J.

Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Burrows, J.), entered April 11, 1995 in Westchester County, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiffs sanctions in the form of counsel fees against certain defendants.

At issue in this appeal is whether Supreme Court erred in imposing sanctions upon certain defendants for their deliberate dilatory conduct during discovery. We conclude that Supreme Court’s award of sanctions should not be disturbed as it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretionary authority under CPLR 3126, which is separate and distinct from the authority granted by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see, Taub v Wulwick, 168 AD2d 492, 493; see also, Siegel, NY Prac §§ 367, 414A, at 540, 631 [2d ed]).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 661, 644 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazarakis-v-bronxville-glen-i-assn-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack