Polidori v. Societe Generale Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polidori v. Societe Generale Group

57 A.D.3d 369, 869 N.Y.2d 448

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 369 (Polidori v. Societe Generale Group) 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

Polidori v. Societe Generale Group, 57 A.D.3d 369, 869 N.Y.2d 448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Conduct of plaintiffs attorney warranting an award of costs includes, inter alia, her failure to appear at one court conference and her lateness at another, and obstreperous conduct at and premature termination of plaintiffs deposition (see O’Neill v Ho, 28 AD3d 626 [2006]; cf. Figdor v City of New York, 33 AD3d 560 [2006]). The notice requirements of part 130 were satisfied and a formal hearing was not required (see RCN Constr. Corp. v Fleet Bank, N.A., 34 AD3d 776, 777 [2006]; Citibank [S.D.] v Ousterman, 279 AD2d 886, 887 [2001]). The Special Referee’s occasional expressions of frustration with counsel’s conduct do not show bias. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them without merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Gonzalez, Catterson, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.

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

Conduct of plaintiffs attorney warranting an award of costs includes, inter alia, her failure to appear at one court conference and her lateness at another, and obstreperous conduct at and premature termination of plaintiffs deposition (see O’Neill v Ho, 28 AD3d 626 [2006]; cf. Figdor v City of New York, 33 AD3d 560 [2006]). The notice requirements of part 130 were satisfied and a formal hearing was not required (see RCN Constr. Corp. v Fleet Bank, N.A., 34 AD3d 776, 777 [2006]; Citibank [S.D.] v Ousterman, 279 AD2d 886, 887 [2001]). The Special Referee’s occasional expressions of frustration with counsel’s conduct do not show bias. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them without merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Gonzalez, Catterson, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 369, 869 N.Y.2d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polidori-v-societe-generale-group-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack