Legal Opinion
Weisburst v. Dreifus
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 15, 2011PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant’s underlying motion for an emergency stay contained “false charges [against plaintiff] that were expressed by means of a tortured and very partial rendering of the facts that can only have been deliberately crafted to mislead” and was therefore frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see e.g. Rogovin v Rogovin, 27 AD3d 233 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rogovin v. RogovinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
3Cited by5 opinions
- Matter of KoverAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Capetola v. CapetolaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Fishoff Family Foundation v. FrydmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Capetola v. CapetolaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Matter of KoverAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015