From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saleh v. Hochberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 16, 2004
5 A.D.3d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3148.

Decided March 16, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 10, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants' motion for sanctions insofar as to direct plaintiff to pay the reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the defense of the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Allen Bodner, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James A. Robbins, for Defendants-Respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Sullivan, JJ.


Since the record discloses that plaintiff, in prolonged litigation, pursued causes of action that were clearly time-barred and otherwise without arguable merit, the motion court's determination that plaintiff should bear the reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the action's defense constituted a proper exercise of discretion ( see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]). The motion court adequately set forth the grounds for exacting costs and attorneys' fees from plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 and in so doing was not required to follow the procedural dictates of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.2 "in any rigid fashion" ( Benefield v. New York City Hous. Auth., 260 A.D.2d 167, 168).

M-654 — Saleh v. Hochberg, et al.

Motion seeking stay denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Saleh v. Hochberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 16, 2004
5 A.D.3d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Saleh v. Hochberg

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH M. SALEH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RALPH R. HOCHBERG, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Mar 16, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 819

Citing Cases

Yenom Corp. v. 155 Wooster Street Inc.

The notice of pendency was properly cancelled upon dismissal of the complaint ( see Samantha Enters. v.…

Singh v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

The court adequately explained the reason for imposing the $10,000 sanction as required by 22 NYCRR 130-1.2.…