Seldon v. Bruno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seldon v. Bruno

204 A.D.2d 180, 612 N.Y.S.2d 858

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

DecidedMay 19, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 180 (Seldon v. Bruno) 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

Seldon v. Bruno, 204 A.D.2d 180, 612 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered May 28, 1992, awarding defendant attorneys’ fees in the amount of $9,032.50, pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 13, 1991 and February 18, 1992, unanimously dismissed, without costs, the former being superseded by the partial judgment entered February 5, 1992 from which no appeal has been taken, and the latter by the judgment of May 28, 1992 appealed herein (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248).

Upon our independent review of the record (cf., Weckstein v Breitbart, 111 AD2d 6, 8), it is clear that the IAS Court properly determined, without a hearing (see, Matter of Minister of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411, 413, n), that plaintiff pro se’s conduct was frivolous, and there is no reason to disturb the exercise of discretion as to either the imposition of sanctions or the amount awarded. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered May 28, 1992, awarding defendant attorneys’ fees in the amount of $9,032.50, pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 13, 1991 and February 18, 1992, unanimously dismissed, without costs, the former being superseded by the partial judgment entered February 5, 1992 from which no appeal has been taken, and the latter by the judgment of May 28, 1992 appealed herein (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248).

Upon our independent review of the record (cf., Weckstein v Breitbart, 111 AD2d 6, 8), it is clear that the IAS Court properly determined, without a hearing (see, Matter of Minister of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411, 413, n), that plaintiff pro se’s conduct was frivolous, and there is no reason to disturb the exercise of discretion as to either the imposition of sanctions or the amount awarded. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 180, 612 N.Y.S.2d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seldon-v-bruno-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack