The court's denial of sanctions and its finding that neither plaintiff nor her lawyer had engaged in frivolous conduct constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], [c]). The grant of such relief to plaintiff was not an improvident exercise of discretion, as defendant had previously brought an order to show cause for sanctions and attorney's fees, which the court had refused to sign (see Benefield v New York City Hous. Auth.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
COSTANTINI v. COSTANTINI
44 A.D.3d 509 (2007)
843 N.Y.S.2d 328
CRISTINA COSTANTINI, Respondent, v. MAURO COSTANTINI, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided October 18, 2007.
Decided October 18, 2007.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
