Village of Brockport v. Calandra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Village of Brockport v. Calandra

305 A.D.2d 1030, 758 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4728

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

DecidedMay 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 1030 (Village of Brockport v. Calandra) 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

Village of Brockport v. Calandra, 305 A.D.2d 1030, 758 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Valentino, J.), entered June 21, 2002, which, inter alia, awarded attorney’s fees and litigation costs to defendant Democrat & Chronicle.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court made the requisite findings and did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and litigation costs to defendant Democrat & Chronicle pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c) (see generally Matter of Alderson v New York State Coll. of Agric. & Life Sciences at Cornell Univ., 299 AD2d 640 [2002]; Matter of Todd v Craig, 266 AD2d 626 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 760 [2000]; Matter of URAC Corp. v Public Serv. Commn. of State of N.Y., 223 AD2d 906, 907 [1996]; Matter of Powhida v City of Albany, 147 AD2d 236, 238-239 [1989]). Present — Wisner, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Valentino, J.), entered June 21, 2002, which, inter alia, awarded attorney’s fees and litigation costs to defendant Democrat & Chronicle.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court made the requisite findings and did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and litigation costs to defendant Democrat & Chronicle pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c) (see generally Matter of Alderson v New York State Coll. of Agric. & Life Sciences at Cornell Univ., 299 AD2d 640 [2002]; Matter of Todd v Craig, 266 AD2d 626 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 760 [2000]; Matter of URAC Corp. v Public Serv. Commn. of State of N.Y., 223 AD2d 906, 907 [1996]; Matter of Powhida v City of Albany, 147 AD2d 236, 238-239 [1989]). Present — Wisner, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 1030, 758 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-brockport-v-calandra-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack