Vassilakos v. Vassilakos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vassilakos v. Vassilakos

204 A.D.2d 1074, 614 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6757

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

DecidedMay 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 1074 (Vassilakos v. Vassilakos) 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

Vassilakos v. Vassilakos, 204 A.D.2d 1074, 614 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, the imposition of sanctions of $3,500 against defendant’s attorney as a condition of relieving defendant from his default is warranted and is an appropriate exercise of Supreme Court’s discretion (see, Folk v State of New York, 185 AD2d 267, 268; Sasson v Sasson, 134 AD2d 491, 492; Gabrelian v Gabrelian, 108 AD2d 445, 447-448, appeal dismissed 66 NY2d 741). The challenge to the propriety of the order striking defendant’s answer is not properly before us because defendant did not appeal from that order (see, CPLR 5515 [1]; see also, Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57, 61). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Rigler, J.—Sanctions.) Present —Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, the imposition of sanctions of $3,500 against defendant’s attorney as a condition of relieving defendant from his default is warranted and is an appropriate exercise of Supreme Court’s discretion (see, Folk v State of New York, 185 AD2d 267, 268; Sasson v Sasson, 134 AD2d 491, 492; Gabrelian v Gabrelian, 108 AD2d 445, 447-448, appeal dismissed 66 NY2d 741). The challenge to the propriety of the order striking defendant’s answer is not properly before us because defendant did not appeal from that order (see, CPLR 5515 [1]; see also, Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57, 61). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Rigler, J.—Sanctions.) Present —Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 1074, 614 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vassilakos-v-vassilakos-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack