From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Zangiacomi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 1996
225 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 4, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the plaintiff's motion is granted, and the order entered October 4, 1994, is vacated.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions against the plaintiff's counsel. The Supreme Court imposed sanctions on the ground that in making an application for a default judgment, counsel failed to comply with the technical requirements of CPLR 3215 (f) and (g)(3). Although the court may have warned counsel in previous unrelated actions about the necessity of complying with these sections, we nevertheless find that such conduct does not amount to "[f]rivolous conduct" as defined by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Zangiacomi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 1996
225 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Zangiacomi

Case Details

Full title:DIME SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK, FSB, Appellant, v. SIMONE ZANGIACOMI, Also…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 773

Citing Cases

Delijani v. Law Office of Sean Sabeti, P.C.

Lastly, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that the imposition of a sanction is unwarranted…

Curcio v. J.P. Hogan Coring Sawing Corp.

Baron Associates knew that the defendants had rejected the plaintiff's settlement documents. Such conduct was…