From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cunningham v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.
Feb 7, 2014
42 Misc. 3d 138 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)

Opinion

No. 570581/13.

2014-02-7

Benjamin CUNNINGHAM, Reena Cunningham, and Mahima Cunningham, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Attn Corporation Counsel John Doe; P.O. Frank Lucia, P.O. Richard Baboolal, Defendants–Respondents.


Plaintiffs' 17th pretrial application, a renewed motion for Rule 130 sanctions, was properly denied. Any isolated misstatement contained in a prior affirmation filed by defense counsel appears inadvertent, and does not rise to the level of frivolous conduct as defined in 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(c). We reach no other issue.


Summaries of

Cunningham v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.
Feb 7, 2014
42 Misc. 3d 138 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)
Case details for

Cunningham v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Benjamin CUNNINGHAM, Reena Cunningham, and Mahima Cunningham…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 7, 2014

Citations

42 Misc. 3d 138 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50152
986 N.Y.S.2d 865