Palmieri v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmieri v. Higgins

11 A.D.3d 594, 782 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12127

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 594 (Palmieri v. Higgins) 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

Palmieri v. Higgins, 11 A.D.3d 594, 782 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated July 14, 2003, which, upon a decision of the same court dated April 13, 2002, granted the defendant’s cross motion for the imposition of a sanction to the extent of directing them to pay the defendant’s attorneys the sum of $2,160.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion is denied.

[595]*595Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiffs’ legal arguments on their motion for reargument and/or renewal were not totally meritless. Thus, the motion was not frivolous or unwarranted as a matter of law (see generally Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 [1979]). Accordingly, the imposition of a sanction was not warranted.

In light of this determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Florio, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated July 14, 2003, which, upon a decision of the same court dated April 13, 2002, granted the defendant’s cross motion for the imposition of a sanction to the extent of directing them to pay the defendant’s attorneys the sum of $2,160.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion is denied.

[595]*595Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiffs’ legal arguments on their motion for reargument and/or renewal were not totally meritless. Thus, the motion was not frivolous or unwarranted as a matter of law (see generally Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 [1979]). Accordingly, the imposition of a sanction was not warranted.

In light of this determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Florio, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 594, 782 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmieri-v-higgins-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack