Pan v. Pan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pan v. Pan

285 A.D.2d 539, 727 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7451

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

DecidedJuly 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 539 (Pan v. Pan) 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

Pan v. Pan, 285 A.D.2d 539, 727 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 29, 1996, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated February 1, 2000, which, inter alia, upon denying her motion, directed her to pay $875 in costs to the plaintiffs attorney for opposing her motion, in accordance with a prior order of the same court dated November 8, 1999.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly directed the defendant to pay $875 in costs to the plaintiffs attorney for opposing her motion, which was frivolous and unintelligible. In a previous order dated November 8, 1999, the Supreme Court, in effect, warned the defendant that if she filed any more frivolous or unintelligible motions or orders to show cause, she would be assessed costs.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 29, 1996, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated February 1, 2000, which, inter alia, upon denying her motion, directed her to pay $875 in costs to the plaintiffs attorney for opposing her motion, in accordance with a prior order of the same court dated November 8, 1999.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly directed the defendant to pay $875 in costs to the plaintiffs attorney for opposing her motion, which was frivolous and unintelligible. In a previous order dated November 8, 1999, the Supreme Court, in effect, warned the defendant that if she filed any more frivolous or unintelligible motions or orders to show cause, she would be assessed costs.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 539, 727 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pan-v-pan-nyappdiv-2001.