From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gerstein v. I Travel Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 15, 1991
169 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Summary

applying privilege to documents relating to Department of City Planning's rezoning decision

Summary of this case from In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

Opinion

January 15, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).


The IAS court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for vacatur of default as movants failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the default. Moreover, the imposition of sanctions, in the sum of $4,000, to be paid by plaintiffs' counsel was appropriate in light of counsel's repeated pattern of "frivolous" conduct as defined by Rules of Chief Administrator of Courts (22 N.Y.CRR) § 130-1.1 (c) (2). Plaintiffs' counsel, on several occasions, served motion papers on defense counsel, prompting such counsel to file opposition papers only to learn that no papers had ever been filed with the court. At the time that defendants sought imposition of sanctions and costs on November 8, 1989, 22 N.Y.CRR part 130-a authorized the imposition of such award which did not exceed $10,000. (See, 22 NYCRR 130-1.2; Matter of Troni [Volney Residence], 147 A.D.2d 394, 395.) The payment of "sanctions" however, should have been deposited with the Clients' Security Fund ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.3; Matter of Schultz v Washington County, 157 A.D.2d 948, 949), rather than defendants-respondents' counsel. Since the facts herein additionally support the imposition of costs on plaintiffs' counsel to be paid to defendants' counsel ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.2), a hearing on the matter should be held.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Gerstein v. I Travel Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 15, 1991
169 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

applying privilege to documents relating to Department of City Planning's rezoning decision

Summary of this case from In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

In One Beekman Place, plaintiffs' challenged a rezoning measure as illegal, " arguing that it was not reasonably calculated to promote the general welfare of the community as a whole, was not consistent with a well-considered, comprehensive plan, and violated the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions."

Summary of this case from New York State Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. v. Shaffer
Case details for

Gerstein v. I Travel Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD GERSTEIN et al., Appellants, v. I TRAVEL INC. et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 15, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
564 N.Y.S.2d 169

Citing Cases

New York State Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. v. Shaffer

Defendant, nevertheless, urges us to take the position of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division,…

Principe v. Assay Partners

For example, when an attorney improperly supplemented papers to the Appellate Division thereby "flouting * *…