General

Darlene Peck, Plaintiff, v. William Voss et al., Defendants, and Katherine Gayhart, Respondent. Finkelstein, Levine, Gittelsohn & Partners, Nonparty Appellant

265 A.D.2d 890696 N.Y.S.2d 730·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1999·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Darlene Peck, Plaintiff, v William Voss et al., Defendants, and Katherine Gayhart, Respondent. Finkelstein, Levine, Gittelsohn & Partners, Nonparty Appellant. [696 NYS2d 730] [MAJORITY] —Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Harvey, J.). We add only that plaintiff’s cross motion seeking sanctions against counsel for defendant Katherine Gayhart was properly denied. Plaintiff provided no evidence that defendant’s counsel engaged in frivolous conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]; Pipas v Syracuse Home Assn., 226 AD2d 1097, lv denied 88 NY2d 810). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J.— Sanctions.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.