Wasson v. Mendik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wasson v. Mendik

253 A.D.2d 711, 678 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9799

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 711 (Wasson v. Mendik) 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

Wasson v. Mendik, 253 A.D.2d 711, 678 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1997, which, upon a finding that plaintiff’s attorneys had engaged in frivolous conduct, directed said attorneys to pay each of the five defense attorneys fees of $2,500, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the award to each defense attorney to $2,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 19, 1997, denying plaintiffs motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Sanctions were properly imposed upon plaintiffs attorneys for frivolously proceeding to jury selection while intending not to proceed to trial (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). The court’s decisions adequately set forth its reasons for purposes of 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 (see, Rachel’s Trousseau v Warshaw Woollen Assocs., 249 AD2d 148), namely, the incurring of unnecessary expense by defense counsel and the waste of valuable court time and resources. However, the order contravenes that provision by imposing a total sanction of more than $10,000, and we modify accordingly. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1997, which, upon a finding that plaintiff’s attorneys had engaged in frivolous conduct, directed said attorneys to pay each of the five defense attorneys fees of $2,500, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the award to each defense attorney to $2,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 19, 1997, denying plaintiffs motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Sanctions were properly imposed upon plaintiffs attorneys for frivolously proceeding to jury selection while intending not to proceed to trial (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). The court’s decisions adequately set forth its reasons for purposes of 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 (see, Rachel’s Trousseau v Warshaw Woollen Assocs., 249 AD2d 148), namely, the incurring of unnecessary expense by defense counsel and the waste of valuable court time and resources. However, the order contravenes that provision by imposing a total sanction of more than $10,000, and we modify accordingly. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 711, 678 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasson-v-mendik-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack