Sutherland v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sutherland v. City of New York

245 A.D.2d 210, 666 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13330

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 210 (Sutherland v. City of New York) 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

Sutherland v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 210, 666 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered November 15, 1996, which granted defendants’ respective cross motions for sanctions against appellant and a protective order against his initiating any further litigation in this matter except for the instant appeal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant, despite repeated warnings by the court against persisting in his attempt to vacate or modify an infant compromise order made 10 years earlier to which he was neither a [211]*211party nor the attorney of record, nevertheless did so with motions that were completely without merit and had not even been served upon the infant plaintiff, her guardian mother, also a plaintiff, or their attorney of record, thereby causing substantial and unnecessary expense and work that amply justified the sanctions and injunction imposed. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered November 15, 1996, which granted defendants’ respective cross motions for sanctions against appellant and a protective order against his initiating any further litigation in this matter except for the instant appeal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellant, despite repeated warnings by the court against persisting in his attempt to vacate or modify an infant compromise order made 10 years earlier to which he was neither a [211]*211party nor the attorney of record, nevertheless did so with motions that were completely without merit and had not even been served upon the infant plaintiff, her guardian mother, also a plaintiff, or their attorney of record, thereby causing substantial and unnecessary expense and work that amply justified the sanctions and injunction imposed. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 210, 666 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.