From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2nd, 11th, & 13th Judicial Districts
May 2, 2016
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 73208 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)

Opinion

Motion No: 2014-01274 KC

05-02-2016

Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Joseph Fabiola, Appellant, v. Hereford Insurance Co., Respondent.


THOMAS P. ALIOTTA

MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appellant Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Joseph Fabiola, having appealed to this court from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, dated May 21, 2014, and counsel having attended a Civil Appeals Management Program (CAMP) conference on July 22, 2014, and appellant having perfected the appeal on October 24, 2014, and on or about January 20, 2016, the parties having been sent notification that the appeal would appear on the February 3, 2016 ready-day calendar; and on January 21, 2016, counsel for appellant having notified the court via letter, that the matter had been settled on September 11, 2015, more than four months earlier, and appellant's counsel having submitted a Civil Court Stipulation of Discontinuance, signed by both counsel and dated September 11, 2015, along with an Appellate Term Withdrawal By Stipulation bearing the same date. By order to show cause dated January 27, 2016, the parties or their counsel were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions as the court may deem appropriate pursuant to the rules of the Appellate Terms, Second Department (22 NYCRR) § 730.3 (f) upon the parties or their respective counsel.

Upon the order to show cause and he papers filed in response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

Section 730.3 (f) of the rules of this Court provides, in relevant part, that "[i]f an appeal or the underlying action or proceeding is wholly or partially settled ... the parties or their counsel shall immediately notify the court. Any attorney or party who, without good cause shown, fails to comply with the requirements of this subdivision shall be subject to the imposition of costs and/or sanctions as the court may direct" (22 NYCRR 730.3 [f]).

Under the particular circumstances of this case, sanctions are not warranted.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk


Summaries of

Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2nd, 11th, & 13th Judicial Districts
May 2, 2016
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 73208 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)
Case details for

Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Joseph Fabiola…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2nd, 11th, & 13th Judicial Districts

Date published: May 2, 2016

Citations

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 73208 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)