The scant record before us does not demonstrate that defense counsel's conduct was frivolous and does not justify the imposition of a 22 NYCRR subpart 130-1 sanction. Further, the court failed to set forth the reasons why it found that counsel's conduct was frivolous and undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation (which was resolved by jury verdict on May 16, 2006) or to harass or maliciously injure another, despite the explanations counsel...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
