Silverman v. Leucadia Inc.

159 A.D.2d 254, 552 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2362
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 8, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 254 (Silverman v. Leucadia 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
Silverman v. Leucadia Inc., 159 A.D.2d 254, 552 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered June 26, 1989, denying plaintiffs motion to renew and granting defendant’s cross motion for sanctions in the amount of $1,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Leucadia had previously held mortgages on Silverman’s property. Since 1978 these parties have been involved in litigation based on that relationship. Silverman has alleged that Leucadia engaged in fraud and other wrongdoings to take control of the properties.

By orders entered March 22, 1984 and affirmed by this court, Silverman was enjoined from bringing any further actions without prior permission of the court. By order entered November 17, 1988, Silverman was found guilty of contempt of the March 22, 1984 order.

In December 1988, Silverman filed papers entitled "permission to file Notice of Lis Pendens The court denied permis[255]*255sion. In a motion dated April 5, 1989, Silverman moved to renew the December 1988 motion asserting that an agreement, dated June 30, 1977, was not before the court. A motion to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew and therefore not made known to the court. (See, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567; see also, James v Nestor, 120 AD2d 442; Klein v Mount Sinai Hosp., 121 AD2d 164.) Through Silverman’s own admissions, he knew of the June 30, 1977 agreement at the time of the December 1988 motion.

Under these circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for the motion court to impose sanctions upon Silverman for engaging in frivolous conduct pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

Suits v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center
84 A.D.3d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bankers Trust Co. of California, N. A. v. Payne
188 Misc. 2d 726 (New York Supreme Court, 2001)
Fortner v. New York City Department of Correction
280 A.D.2d 381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
DeFazio v. Berley Realty Corp.
259 A.D.2d 266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Dankner v. Szurzan & Dorf, Inc.
226 A.D.2d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Fowler v. Conforti
152 Misc. 2d 909 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Charney v. North Jersey Trading Corp.
150 Misc. 2d 849 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
Real Estate Economic Resources, Inc. v. Armendariz
162 A.D.2d 303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 A.D.2d 254, 552 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-leucadia-inc-nyappdiv-1990.