Weisburst v. Dreifus
89 A.D.3d 536, 932 N.Y.2d 689
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 2011·Published·Cited by 5 cases
Opinion
The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant’s underlying motion for an emergency stay contained “false charges [against plaintiff] that were expressed by means of a tortured and very partial rendering of the facts that can only have been deliberately crafted to mislead” and was therefore frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see e.g. Rogovin v Rogovin, 27 AD3d 233 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Weisburst v. Dreifus, 89 A.D.3d 536, 932 N.Y.2d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
89 A.D.3d 536 (Weisburst v. Dreifus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fishoff Family Foundation v. Frydman
2017 NY Slip Op 2371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Kover
134 A.D.3d 64 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Capetola v. Capetola
96 A.D.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)