Raymond v. Lachmann

264 A.D.2d 340, 695 N.Y.S.2d 308
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 19, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 340 (Raymond v. Lachmann) 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
Raymond v. Lachmann, 264 A.D.2d 340, 695 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered January 8, 1998, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that plaintiff is entitled to ownership and possession of the subject cat, Lovey, nee Merlin, conditioned upon plaintiff’s payment for all veterinary expenses incurred by the cat since May 1995, and granted defendant’s motion for, inter alia, the imposition of sanctions to the extent of directing plaintiff’s counsel to reimburse defendant for all reasonable counsel fees incurred in making the motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise [341]*341of discretion, without costs, plaintiffs cross-motion denied, judgment granted to defendant awarding her ownership and possession of Lovey, defendant’s motion denied and the award of sanctions vacated. Defendant’s appeal from the order, same court and Justice, entered September 25, 1998, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Cognizant of the cherished status accorded to pets in our society, the strong emotions engendered by disputes of this nature, and the limited ability of the courts to resolve them satisfactorily, on the record presented, we think it best for all concerned that, given his limited life expectancy, Lovey, who is now almost ten years old, remain where he has lived, prospered, loved and been loved for the past four years.

As to the imposition of sanctions for improper discovery practice, while we do not condone such conduct, we consider vacatur of such sanctions appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Connolly v. Nina
2024 NY Slip Op 51422(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Deblase v. Hill
2024 NY Slip Op 50901(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Ellenbogen v. Mitreski
212 A.D.3d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Hennet v. Allan
43 Misc. 3d 542 (New York Supreme Court, 2014)
Travis v. Murray
42 Misc. 3d 447 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
LeConte v. Lee
35 Misc. 3d 286 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2011)
Lovelace v. Krauss
60 A.D.3d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Feger v. Warwick Animal Shelter
59 A.D.3d 68 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D.2d 340, 695 N.Y.S.2d 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-v-lachmann-nyappdiv-1999.