The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >E-Unit, LLC v. Saul
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

E-Unit, LLC v. Saul

2015-06392·Judge: Rivera, Balkin, Chambers, Cohen0 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • E-Unit, LLC v Saul (2017 NY Slip Op 06351) E-Unit, LLC v Saul 2017 NY Slip Op...
  • Aprilanne Agostino
  • Clerk of the Court

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • E-Unit, LLC v Saul (2017 NY Slip Op 06351) E-Unit, LLC v Saul 2017 NY Slip Op...
  • Aprilanne Agostino
  • Clerk of the Court

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

E-Unit, LLC v Saul (2017 NY Slip Op 06351)
E-Unit, LLC v Saul
2017 NY Slip Op 06351
Decided on August 30, 2017
Appellate Division, Second Department
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.


Decided on August 30, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

2015-06392
(Index No. 511863/14)

[*1]E-Unit, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, et al., respondents,

v

Lewis Saul, et al., appellants.




Judd Burstein, P.C., New York, NY, for appellants.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carolyn E. Demarest, J.), dated June 17, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to impose sanctions.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their cross motion which was to impose a monetary sanction upon the plaintiffs and their attorney, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that either engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) (see Finkelman v SBRE, LLC, 71 AD3d 1081, 1082; Glenn v Annunziata, 53 AD3d 565, 566).

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap