Polidori v. Societe Generale Group

57 A.D.3d 369, 869 N.Y.2d 448
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 18, 2008·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

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

57 A.D.3d 369 (Polidori v. Societe Generale Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gendell v. 42 W. 17th St. Hous. Corp.
2022 NY Slip Op 00272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Porges v. Weitz
2019 NY Slip Op 8235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Bibi Khan-Soleil v. Rashad
111 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Daniel D. v. Linda C.
24 Misc. 3d 220 (NYC Family Court, 2009)