Rose v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rose v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc.

18 A.D.3d 532, 794 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5051

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

DecidedMay 9, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 532 (Rose v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc.) 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

Rose v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 532, 794 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs attorney, Bernadette Panzella, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated August 25, 2003, which denied her motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated February 14, 2001, which, among other things, purportedly found her to be in contempt of court and in violation of certain Disciplinary Rules.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the order dated February 14, 2001, did not hold her in contempt of court or in violation of any Disciplinary Rules. Moreover, there was no basis to grant the further relief sought by the appellant merely because that order, and two other orders, contained language critical of her conduct in the prosecution of this case (see Anspach v Miller Bluff’s Constr. Corp., 280 AD2d 564 [2001]; Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Evergreen Intl. Aviation, 275 AD2d 358 [2000]). Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs attorney, Bernadette Panzella, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated August 25, 2003, which denied her motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated February 14, 2001, which, among other things, purportedly found her to be in contempt of court and in violation of certain Disciplinary Rules.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the order dated February 14, 2001, did not hold her in contempt of court or in violation of any Disciplinary Rules. Moreover, there was no basis to grant the further relief sought by the appellant merely because that order, and two other orders, contained language critical of her conduct in the prosecution of this case (see Anspach v Miller Bluff’s Constr. Corp., 280 AD2d 564 [2001]; Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Evergreen Intl. Aviation, 275 AD2d 358 [2000]). Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 532, 794 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-thrifty-rent-a-car-system-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack