Tsachalis v. City of Mt. Vernon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tsachalis v. City of Mt. Vernon

283 A.D.2d 420, 723 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4771

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 420 (Tsachalis v. City of Mt. Vernon) 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

Tsachalis v. City of Mt. Vernon, 283 A.D.2d 420, 723 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, Richard L. Giampa, attorney for the [421]*421plaintiff, appeals, by permission, from four orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated May 10, 2000, and two orders of the same court, dated May 31, 2000, each of which summarily adjudged him to be in criminal contempt of court and imposed a fine.

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the contempt adjudications are vacated.

We find no basis in the record for the determinations summarily adjudicating the appellant to be in contempt of court. The record does not show that the appellant acted for any reason other than to protect the record in the best interests of his client (see, Matter of Traynor v Lange, 178 AD2d 481; Matter of Singer v Groh, 99 AD2d 758; Matter of Marino v Burstein, 72 AD2d 814). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, Richard L. Giampa, attorney for the [421]*421plaintiff, appeals, by permission, from four orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated May 10, 2000, and two orders of the same court, dated May 31, 2000, each of which summarily adjudged him to be in criminal contempt of court and imposed a fine.

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the contempt adjudications are vacated.

We find no basis in the record for the determinations summarily adjudicating the appellant to be in contempt of court. The record does not show that the appellant acted for any reason other than to protect the record in the best interests of his client (see, Matter of Traynor v Lange, 178 AD2d 481; Matter of Singer v Groh, 99 AD2d 758; Matter of Marino v Burstein, 72 AD2d 814). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 420, 723 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsachalis-v-city-of-mt-vernon-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack