Legal Opinion

Rodrigues v. Occhipinti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 18, 2008Published

1Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for costs against the plaintiff for engaging in frivolous conduct. Conduct is frivolous if “it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). Inasmuch as the plaintiff admitted that after commencing the action he no longer wanted to pursue it and took no steps to discontinue the action, awarding costs to the defendant to reimburse him for actual expenses and attorney’s fees…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moran v. Regency Savings Bank, F.S.B.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  2. Timoney v. Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  3. Janitschek v. Trustees of Friends World CollegeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  4. Juron & Minzner, P.C. v. State Farm InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API