Deborah Squires

The applicant sought costs for three motions in a family law proceeding: a non-depletion/Mareva motion, a disclosure motion, and a motion to vary support that the respondent abandoned.

The respondent failed to provide comparative bills of costs or make reasonable offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant $48,000 in costs.

A third-party lawyer who was the target of the disclosure motion was also awarded $10,000 in costs, payable by the respondent.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims and crossclaims, and the dismissal of the defendant's cross-motion.

The plaintiff requested $9,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented defendant did not provide costs submissions despite an extension.

The court found the plaintiff's costs generally reasonable but reduced the amount to account for the attendance of two senior counsel at the hearing.

The court awarded the plaintiff $8,000 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion to dismiss the self-represented defendant's counterclaim and crossclaim, arguing they were derivative claims belonging to a dissolved corporation.

The defendant brought a cross-motion seeking production of banking records and a court order to revive the dissolved corporation.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order the corporate revival and that the requested banking records either did not exist or belonged to third parties.

The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss the counterclaims and crossclaim, applying the rule in Foss v. Harbottle to conclude the defendant could not personally sue for wrongs allegedly committed against the corporation, save for a claim for an accounting.

The parties brought competing motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent husband sought summary judgment declaring the valuation date as June 30, 2008, while the applicant wife claimed the date was December 20, 2019.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding his evidence disingenuous and setting the valuation date at December 20, 2019.

The court granted the wife's motion for interim spousal support, imputing an income of $838,000 to the husband and ordering him to pay $25,000 per month.

The court also granted the wife leave to question the family's long-time lawyer as a non-party, but dismissed her request for interim disbursements without prejudice.

The applicants, estate trustees of the late Ellen Kates, sought to propound codicils executed in August 2011.

The objectors challenged the codicils on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, citing the testator's diagnosis of moderate Alzheimer's disease.

The court found that despite the cognitive impairment, the testator understood the nature and effect of the codicils, the extent of her property, and the claims of those excluded.

The court also found no evidence of coercion or fraud amounting to undue influence.

The codicils were admitted to probate.