Sanon v. Emmes Asset Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanon v. Emmes Asset Management Corp.

294 A.D.2d 156, 741 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4784

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

DecidedMay 9, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 156 (Sanon v. Emmes Asset Management Corp.) 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

Sanon v. Emmes Asset Management Corp., 294 A.D.2d 156, 741 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered on or about August 7, 2001, which, in an action by a building resident for personal injuries allegedly caused by negligent building maintenance, insofar as appealed from denied defendants’ motion for an award of costs and sanctions against plaintiff for frivolous conduct, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court ultimately determined that defendants’ status as additional insureds on an insurance policy for the subject premises did not expose defendants to liability for plaintiffs injuries. The court also found that plaintiffs refusal to discontinue the action voluntarily, and his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, were not frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR part 130. In our review of that ruling, we find it well within the proper exercise of the court’s discretion. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered on or about August 7, 2001, which, in an action by a building resident for personal injuries allegedly caused by negligent building maintenance, insofar as appealed from denied defendants’ motion for an award of costs and sanctions against plaintiff for frivolous conduct, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court ultimately determined that defendants’ status as additional insureds on an insurance policy for the subject premises did not expose defendants to liability for plaintiffs injuries. The court also found that plaintiffs refusal to discontinue the action voluntarily, and his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, were not frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR part 130. In our review of that ruling, we find it well within the proper exercise of the court’s discretion. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 156, 741 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanon-v-emmes-asset-management-corp-nyappdiv-2002.