Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered November 23, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, confirmed the order of the Special Referee to supervise disclosure imposing costs against plaintiff's attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered May 27, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion to remove the Special Referee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Catterson, McGuire, Acosta, JJ. 4876.1-
Conduct of plaintiff's attorney warranting an award of costs includes, inter alia, her failure to appear at one court conference and her lateness at another, and obstreperous conduct at and premature termination of plaintiff's deposition (see O'Neill v Ho, 28 AD3d 626 ; cf. Figdor v City of New York, 33 AD3d 560 ). The notice requirements of part 130 were satisfied and a formal hearing was not required (see RCN Constr. Corp. v Fleet Bank, N.A., 34 AD3d 776, 777 ; Citibank [S.D.] v Ousterman, 279 AD2d 886, 887 ). The Special Referee's occasional expressions of frustration with counsel's conduct do not show bias. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...