You are here: / / APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND...
,

APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the appeal in this real property dispute warranted sanctions against one appellant and his attorney ($500 each). It appears that the appellants entered a stipulation of settlement in which they stated they owned real property, knowing they did not own the property. The appeal was brought after Supreme Court enforced the stipulated settlement (requiring appellants to pay $1.8 million plus costs):

​

We reject the appellants’ argument that they were unaware, at the time of the stipulation of settlement, that the City of Peekskill owned the subject property. Nearly two years prior to the stipulation of settlement, in a proceeding to foreclose a tax lien, in an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), dated October 1, 2012, the City of Peekskill was granted permission to file a deed conveying the subject property to the City of Peekskill as owner in fee simple absolute. Dashley Realty appealed, and this Court affirmed the judgment … . The appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to vacate the stipulation of settlement, as their purported mistake in not knowing about the City’s ownership when they entered into the stipulation of settlement on August 11, 2014, is belied by the order and judgment dated October 1, 2012, Dashley Realty’s appeal from that judgment, and attorney George W. Echevarria’s representation of Dashley Realty on that appeal.

Under the circumstances of this case, including, but not limited to, the appellants’ attempt to vacate the stipulation of settlement based upon their purported mistake, we find that much of the conduct of the appellant Cirilo Rodriguez and attorney George W. Echevarria, including their prosecution of this appeal, which is based upon the same meritless arguments advanced on the cross motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement, has been “undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation” (22 NYCRR § 130—1.1[c][2]). We find that this conduct warrants sanctions in the amount of $500 each on the appellant Cirilo Rodriguez and attorney George W. Echevarria … . ATS-1 Corp. v Rodriguez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08651, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

ATTORNEYS (APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (SANCTIONS, APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/SANCTIONS (ATTORNEYS, APPEALS, APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE BANK ACCEPTED PAYMENTS IN LESS THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT AFTER THE ALLEGED DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)
No “Special Relationship” Between School District and Teacher Injured by Student
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT CRITICIZED THE PIECEMEAL DECISION-MAKING BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS COMPLEX DIVORCE PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN AN INADEQUATE RECORD ON APPEAL; HOWEVER THE 2ND DEPARTMENT ADDRESSED MANY OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN A DETAILED OPINION WORTH READING BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO SUMMARIZE HERE (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT TO CREATE A WEBSITE FOR PLAINTIFF, JUDGMENT AFTER A NON-JURY TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE DANCE FLOOR IN THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT ALERT CITY TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CLAIM IN THIS FIRE TRUCK TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, AND THE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY IN SEEKING TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, LAW OFFICE FAILURE, WAS INSUFFICIENT, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING WITNESSES SUCH THAT OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS BY THOSE WITNESSES WERE ADMISSIBLE; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXERCISE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SECOND DEPT ASKED FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROUGHT... ABSENCE OF A SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF INDICTMENT REQUIRED BY THE NYS CONSTITUTION...