Foxfire Enterprises, Inc. v. Enterprise Holding Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1988 |
| Citation | 528 N.Y.S.2d 645,140 A.D.2d 581 |
| Parties | FOXFIRE ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDING CORP., et al., Defendants, Samuel Weinbaum, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John Arneson, New York City, for appellants.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, EIBER and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.) dated May 13, 1987, which imposed sanctions of $3,000.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the award of sanctions is stricken.
The court lacked inherent power to impose monetary sanctions for frivolous motion practice. As there is no statutory provision or court rule permitting the imposition of sanctions, the order herein must be reversed as a matter of law notwithstanding the fact that duplicative motions were made by the plaintiff (see, Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v. Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1, 511 N.Y.S.2d 216, 503 N.E.2d 681; Ltown Ltd. Partnership v. Sire Plan, 69 N.Y.2d 670, 511 N.Y.S.2d 840, 503 N.E.2d 1377; Guma v. Guma, 132 A.D.2d 645, 518 N.Y.S.2d 19; Claybourne v. City of New York, 128 A.D.2d 667, 513 N.Y.S.2d 165).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. I.L.
...which is very different from that before this court. I note that certain Second Department cases (Foxfire Enterprises v. Enterprise Holding, 140 A.D.2d 581, 528 N.Y.S.2d 645 [1988]; Guma v. Guma, 132 A.D.2d 645, 518 N.Y.S.2d 19 [1987]; Claybourne v. City of New York, 128 A.D.2d 667, 513 N.Y......
-
FDIC v. Koffman
... ... Supp. 177 Inc. ("Smith Barney") to satisfy a money judgment ... ...
-
Frerks by Frerks v. Iandoli
...503 N.E.2d 681; Ltown Ltd. Partnership v. Sire Plan, 69 N.Y.2d 670, 511 N.Y.S.2d 840, 503 N.E.2d 1377; Foxfire Enters. v. Enterprise Holding Corp., 140 A.D.2d 581, 528 N.Y.S.2d 645). A new part 130 of the Uniform Rules for New York State Trial Courts (22 NYCRR part 130) has been adopted, ef......
-
Marcus Garvey Nursing Home, Inc. v. Ciccone
...there was no statutory provision or court rule permitting the imposition of such a sanction (see, Foxfire Enters. v. Enterprise Holding Corp., 140 A.D.2d 581, 528 N.Y.S.2d 645; see also, Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v. Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1, 511 N.Y.S.2d 216, 503 N.E.2d 681; Ltown Ltd......