Singer v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singer v. New York City Transit Authority

67 A.D.3d 440, 886 N.Y.S.2d 883

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.3d 440 (Singer v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Singer v. New York City Transit Authority, 67 A.D.3d 440, 886 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J.), entered April 22, 2009, which denied plaintiff’s motion to impose sanctions on defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for sanctions, which was brought eight months after the trial had concluded with a verdict in plaintiffs favor. While the trial court had stated that plaintiff could move for sanctions “whenever [she] wishfed] to,” this remark did not provide plaintiff with an unlimited period of time to bring the [441]*441motion, and as the court found, the eight-month delay was unreasonable. Concur—Sweeny, J.E, Buckley, Catterson, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J.), entered April 22, 2009, which denied plaintiff’s motion to impose sanctions on defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for sanctions, which was brought eight months after the trial had concluded with a verdict in plaintiffs favor. While the trial court had stated that plaintiff could move for sanctions “whenever [she] wishfed] to,” this remark did not provide plaintiff with an unlimited period of time to bring the [441]*441motion, and as the court found, the eight-month delay was unreasonable. Concur—Sweeny, J.E, Buckley, Catterson, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 440, 886 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2009.