Peck v. Voss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peck v. Voss

265 A.D.2d 890, 696 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10002

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 1, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Harvey, J.). We add only that plaintiff’s cross motion seeking sanctions against counsel for defendant Katherine Gayhart was properly denied. Plaintiff provided no evidence that defendant’s counsel engaged in frivolous conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]; Pipas v Syracuse Home Assn., 226 AD2d 1097, lv denied 88 NY2d 810). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J.— Sanctions.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Harvey, J.). We add only that plaintiff’s cross motion seeking sanctions against counsel for defendant Katherine Gayhart was properly denied. Plaintiff provided no evidence that defendant’s counsel engaged in frivolous conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]; Pipas v Syracuse Home Assn., 226 AD2d 1097, lv denied 88 NY2d 810). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J.— Sanctions.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Peck v. Voss, 265 A.D.2d 890, 696 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 890 (Peck v. Voss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related