Greene v. Rachlin, 2016-02413, 2016-08746, Index No. 62465/14.
| Decision Date | 18 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2016-02413, 2016-08746, Index No. 62465/14. |
| Parties | Jodi GREENE, et al., appellants, v. Nahid RACHLIN, et al., respondents, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
154 A.D.3d 818
62 N.Y.S.3d 472
Jodi GREENE, et al., appellants,
v.
Nahid RACHLIN, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
2016-02413, 2016-08746, Index No. 62465/14.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 18, 2017.
Jeffrey S. Greene, P.C., White Plains, NY, for appellants.
Foster, Riyaz & Howard, P.C., Westhampton, NY (Erik C. Howard and Frederic Foster of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JEFFREY A. COHEN and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (H. Patrick Leis III, J.), dated January 13, 2016, and (2) an order of that court dated August 3, 2016. The order dated August 3, 2016, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of the defendants Nahid Rachlin and Howard Rachlin pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(a) for an award of costs and attorneys' fees against the plaintiffs, and denied
the plaintiffs' cross motion, in effect, to vacate so much of a prior order of that court as searched the record and awarded summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Nahid Rachlin and Howard Rachlin.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated January 13, 2016, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated August 3, 2016; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated August 3, 2016, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Nahid Rachlin and Howard Rachlin; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the parties to these appeals and/or their counsel are directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing additional sanctions and/or costs, if any, including appellate counsel fees, against the plaintiffs and/or their counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(c) as this Court may deem appropriate, by filing an original and four copies of their respective affirmations or affidavits on that issue, including the amounts of legal fees incurred by the defendants Nahid Rachlin and Howard Rachlin in connection with these appeals, in the office of the Clerk of this Court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before November 20, 2017; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, is directed to serve counsel for the respective parties with a copy of this decision and order by regular mail.
The underlying facts relevant to these appeals are set forth in this Court's decision and order in the companion appeals (see Greene v. Rachlin, 154 A.D.3d 814, 63 N.Y.S.3d 78 [Docket Nos.2015–03529, 2015–04706;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. New York State Insurance Fund
...pay $2, 500 to the court clerk to be forwarded in turn to the State Department of Taxation and Finance. [78] See also Greene v. Rachlin, 154 A.D.3d 818 (2d Dept 2017) (attorney's fees awarded as sanction against Plaintiff for its frivolous conduct in commencing action that was without merit......
-
NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. New York State Insurance Fund
...pay $2, 500 to the court clerk to be forwarded in turn to the State Department of Taxation and Finance. [78] See also Greene v. Rachlin, 154 A.D.3d 818 (2d Dept 2017) (attorney's fees awarded as sanction against Plaintiff for its frivolous conduct in commencing action that was without merit......
-
Maddaloni v. Maddaloni
...in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2221(e) (see CPLR 2221[e][2] ; Kamel v. Mukhopady, 156 A.D.3d 688, 689, 64 N.Y.S.3d 910 ; Greene v. Rachlin, 154 A.D.3d 818, 819, 62 N.Y.S.3d 472 ).The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ.,...
-
Bihn v. Connelly
...or reversal of existing law (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 [c][1]; Miller v. James, 262 A.D.2d 617, 691 N.Y.S.2d 353 ; see also Greene v. Rachlin, 154 A.D.3d 818, 819, 62 N.Y.S.3d 472 ).The defendants' remaining contention is without merit. CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ.,...