Thoubboron v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thoubboron v. Smith

8 A.D.3d 260, 777 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7528

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

DecidedJune 1, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 260 (Thoubboron v. Smith) 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

Thoubboron v. Smith, 8 A.D.3d 260, 777 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for libel, the defendants William Spain and Compton Spain appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Futnam County (Nicolai, J.), dated February 3, 2003, which denied their motion for an award of costs and to impose a sanction against the plaintiff and his attorneys pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion for an award of costs and to impose a sanction against the plaintiff and his attorneys, as the conduct at issue was not frivolous conduct proscribed by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see Mimoun v Zicherman, 293 AD2d 585 [2002]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for libel, the defendants William Spain and Compton Spain appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Futnam County (Nicolai, J.), dated February 3, 2003, which denied their motion for an award of costs and to impose a sanction against the plaintiff and his attorneys pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion for an award of costs and to impose a sanction against the plaintiff and his attorneys, as the conduct at issue was not frivolous conduct proscribed by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see Mimoun v Zicherman, 293 AD2d 585 [2002]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 260, 777 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thoubboron-v-smith-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack