From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Papelino v. Papelino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 18, 1992
187 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 18, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly enforced the stipulation and denied defendant's cross motion to rescind it (see, Rivera v State of New York, 115 A.D.2d 431). The court erred, however, in imposing sanctions on defendant because the cross motion was not completely devoid of merit in law and fact ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; cf., Liker v Grossman, 175 A.D.2d 911, 913-914). The fourth paragraph of the order is therefore modified by vacating the $1,500 attorney's fee award pursuant to 22 N.Y.CRR part 130.


Summaries of

Papelino v. Papelino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 18, 1992
187 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Papelino v. Papelino

Case Details

Full title:FRANK A. PAPELINO, Respondent, v. CHARLES F. PAPELINO, Appellant. (Appeal…

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

Date published: Nov 18, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Matter of MacKnight v. Sutton

Supreme Court's denial of petitioners' motion to reargue is not appealable (see, Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc.,…