Paolucci v. Adult Retardates Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paolucci v. Adult Retardates Center, Inc.

182 A.D.2d 682, 582 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5996

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

DecidedApril 13, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 682 (Paolucci v. Adult Retardates Center, Inc.) 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

Paolucci v. Adult Retardates Center, Inc., 182 A.D.2d 682, 582 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of an employment contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated February 13, 1991, which denied her motion to renew a motion by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, and imposed a sanction of $1,000 upon the plaintiff’s attorney for making the motion.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision imposing a $1,000 sanction upon the plaintiff’s attorney; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

While the plaintiff’s motion to renew lacked merit because the newly acquired document upon which the plaintiff relied did not alter the employment relationship, the motion was not frivolous. Thus, the imposition of a sanction against the plaintiff’s attorney was improper. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of an employment contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated February 13, 1991, which denied her motion to renew a motion by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, and imposed a sanction of $1,000 upon the plaintiff’s attorney for making the motion.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision imposing a $1,000 sanction upon the plaintiff’s attorney; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

While the plaintiff’s motion to renew lacked merit because the newly acquired document upon which the plaintiff relied did not alter the employment relationship, the motion was not frivolous. Thus, the imposition of a sanction against the plaintiff’s attorney was improper. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 682, 582 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paolucci-v-adult-retardates-center-inc-nyappdiv-1992.