Lawrence Ripak Co. v. Gdanski
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06805,143 A.D.3d 862,39 N.Y.S.3d 223 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE RIPAK CO., INC., appellant, v. Sam Z. GDANSKI, respondent. |
| Decision Date | 19 October 2016 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
143 A.D.3d 862
39 N.Y.S.3d 223
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06805
LAWRENCE RIPAK CO., INC., appellant,
v.
Sam Z. GDANSKI, respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 19, 2016.
The Scher Law Firm, LLP, Carle Place, NY (Austin Graff of counsel), for appellant.
Sam Z. Gdanski, Teaneck, New Jersey, respondent pro se.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487, the plaintiff
appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated April 15, 2015, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for an award of attorney's fees and costs, and to impose sanctions against the plaintiff's attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendant's
motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action to recover damages for attorney misconduct pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487. The defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that he did not “ commit deceit or collusion” upon the court or any party (Judiciary Law § 487[1] ; see Tenore v. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., 121 A.D.3d 775, 994 N.Y.S.2d 171 ; Pui Sang Lai v. Shuk Yim Lau, 50 A.D.3d 758, 855 N.Y.S.2d 615 ; Knecht v. Tusa, 15 A.D.3d 626, 789 N.Y.S.2d 904 ; O'Connell v. Kerson, 291 A.D.2d 386, 736 N.Y.S.2d 895 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).
The Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ramirez v. State
- Houston v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Brown, INDEX NO.:011380/2010
...as damages to the innocent party as compensation for having to defend themselves over such a matter (Lawrence Ripak Co. Inc. v Gdanski, 143 Ad3d 862 [2nd Dept 2016] 39 N.Y.S.3d 223). Relying upon both Mr. Schlesinger's testimony and the uncontroverted documentary evidence, this Court finds ......
-
Dec v. BFM Realty, LLC
...facie, that the attorney defendants did not commit deceit or collusion upon the court or any party (see Lawrence Ripak Co., Inc. v. Gdanski, 143 A.D.3d 862, 863, 39 N.Y.S.3d 223 ; Klein v. Rieff, 135 A.D.3d 910, 912, 24 N.Y.S.3d 364 ; Specialized Indus. Servs. Corp. v. Carter, 131 A.D.3d 11......