Papelino v. Papelino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Papelino v. Papelino

187 A.D.2d 999

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 999 (Papelino v. Papelino) 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

Papelino v. Papelino, 187 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly enforced the stipulation and denied defendant’s cross motion to rescind it (see, Rivera v State of New York, 115 AD2d 431). The court erred, however, in imposing sanctions on defendant because the cross motion was not completely devoid of merit in law and fact (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; cf, Liker v Grossman, 175 AD2d 911, 913-914). The fourth paragraph of the order is therefore modified by vacating the $1,500 attorney’s fee award pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J.— Enforce Stipulation of Settlement.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly enforced the stipulation and denied defendant’s cross motion to rescind it (see, Rivera v State of New York, 115 AD2d 431). The court erred, however, in imposing sanctions on defendant because the cross motion was not completely devoid of merit in law and fact (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; cf, Liker v Grossman, 175 AD2d 911, 913-914). The fourth paragraph of the order is therefore modified by vacating the $1,500 attorney’s fee award pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J.— Enforce Stipulation of Settlement.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/papelino-v-papelino-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack