Mimoun v. Zicherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mimoun v. Zicherman

293 A.D.2d 585, 740 N.Y.S.2d 230, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3700

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

DecidedApril 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 585 (Mimoun v. Zicherman) 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

Mimoun v. Zicherman, 293 A.D.2d 585, 740 N.Y.S.2d 230, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated January 25, 2001, as denied his motion, inter alia, to impose a sanction upon the plaintiff and her attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to impose a sanction, as the conduct at issue was not frivolous conduct proscribed by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see Matter of Gavilanes v Dilan, 281 AD2d 546; Gorenstein v Debralaurie Realty Co., 280 AD2d 642; Matter of Christopher, 280 AD2d 546). Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated January 25, 2001, as denied his motion, inter alia, to impose a sanction upon the plaintiff and her attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to impose a sanction, as the conduct at issue was not frivolous conduct proscribed by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see Matter of Gavilanes v Dilan, 281 AD2d 546; Gorenstein v Debralaurie Realty Co., 280 AD2d 642; Matter of Christopher, 280 AD2d 546). Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 585, 740 N.Y.S.2d 230, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mimoun-v-zicherman-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack