 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mayes v. UVI Holdings3/22/2001
fth cause of action against it seeking to recover damages for personal injury. In any event, this claim is unrelated to the wrongful eviction as the injury alleged is stated to have occurred two days prior to her eviction by the Marshal.
As to the issue of sanctions, this Court sees no reason to disturb the findings of Supreme Court that the imposition of sanctions is warranted against Jacob Goodman and his counsel, Fred Ehrlich. The Special Referee appointed to supervise oral examinations submitted a detailed report attesting to an "unending pattern of orchestrated, obtructionist and provocative conduct intended to delay or otherwise obfuscate mandated discovery in this action." On this record, it cannot be concluded that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions.
Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about May 3, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment only to the extent of imposing sanctions against defendant Jacob Goodman and his counsel, Fred Ehrlich; denied defendant Mujica & Goodman' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against the law firm; granted the motion of defendant UVI Holdings and its president, defendant Arthur Haruvi, for summary judgment on their cross claim against the attorneys for malpractice and granted summary judgment dismissing the attorneys' cross claim against the landlord for contribution or indemnification; and which granted the motion of former City Marshal Herzog to the extent of dismissing plaintiffs' fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action against her, should be modified, on the law, to the extent of granting plaintiffs summary judgment as against defendant law firm and defendant landlord on the issue of liability for wrongful eviction and dismissing plaintiffs' second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth causes of action; dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against defendant Marshal Rita Herzog and dismissing, as moot, the Marshal's cross claims against the landlord and the law firm; granting the landlord summary judgment on its malpractice cross claim against the law firm, dismissing the law firm's first and second affirmative defenses and reinstating its cross claim for contribution and indemnification as against the landlord, and except as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant Marshal Rita Herzog dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against her.
All concur.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MARCH 22, 2001
|