Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 ยง 130-1.1 deals with Costs and Sanctions. It states, in pertinent part:
(22 NYCRR 130-1.1.)
Under 22 NYCRR ยง130-1.1[a], a party may be sanctioned for engaging in โfrivolousโ conduct, meaning conduct that is:
(Seidler v. Knopf (2017) Index # 506453/2014, at *12 citing 22 NYCRR ยง130-1.1[a].)
Section 130-1.2 concerning Orders awarding costs or imposing sanctions states in relevant part:
โThe court may award costs or impose sanctions or both only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate. An award of costs or the imposition of sanctions or both shall be entered as a judgment of the court. In no event shall the amount of sanctions imposed exceed $10,000 for any single occurrence of frivolous conduct.โ
(Id.)Section 130-2.2 concerns the Order for imposing sanctions and costs regarding failure to appear, and states:
The court may impose sanctions or award costs or both only upon a written memorandum decision or statement on the record setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based and the reasons why the court found the attorney's failure to appear at a scheduled court appearance to be without good cause. The imposition of sanctions or an award of costs or both shall be entered as a judgment of the court. In no event shall the total amount of sanctions imposed and costs awarded exceed $2,500 for any single failure to appear at a scheduled court appearance.
(Id.)
โCPLR 3126 provides a court with a broad range of options in addressing a party's discovery abuses. In making its determination of the appropriate sanction, the court must consider the degree to which the contumacious conduct or destruction of evidence prejudiced the other party.โ (Melcher v. Apollo (2013) Medical Fund Management L.L.C., 105 A.D.3d 15.)
โThe Special Referee's determination of defendants' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to be paid by plaintiff as a sanction for discovery abuses is supported by the record. (Zacharius v. Kensington Publ'g Corp. (2018) 167 A.D.3d 452, 453, citing Kaplan v Einy (1994) 209 A.D.2d 248, 250-251.) The evidence includes the testimony of the experienced attorneys who performed the relevant services and the invoices sent to the clients, which describe the services in detail and the time spent each day, and which, the attorneys testified, were prepared contemporaneously with the services rendered (Zacharius, citing generally Matter of Freeman (1974) 34 NY2d 1, 9.) Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the time spent by defendants' attorneys was duplicative or unreasonable.โ (Zacharius v. Kensington Publ'g Corp. (2018) 167 A.D.3d 452, 453.)
Where plaintiff, an attorney representing himself, pursued an appeal which was "completely without merit" (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]), the court found that the plaintiff's assertion that his intent was to clear his name in no way diminished the fact that the appeal was meritless. (Weinstock v. Weinstock (1998) 253 A.D.2d 873, 874.) The court has found that โmerit must be judged with reference to whether a particular course of litigation is or is not designed to obtain some real form of relief as a remedy for some cognizable wrong. The appeal taken by the plaintiff was completely without merit under this standard, and, in the absence of any other concrete motivation, the appeal can only have been intended to harass the defendant within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(2), by needlessly forcing her to incur attorney's fees.โ (Id.)
The Weinstock court awarded the maximum authorized amount as a sanction for plaintiff Weinstock's conduct [$3,000 to counsel for the defendant Weinstock, and to personally pay a sanction in the amount of $10,000 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection established pursuant to State Finance Law ยง 97-t] stating that โfrivolous litigation causes a substantial waste of judicial resources to the detriment of those litigants who come to the Court with real grievances.โ (Id.)
Queens County, NY
Jan 23, 2023
Foreclosure (residential mortgage)
Kings County, NY
Jan 17, 2023
Torts - Other (Labor Law)
May 27, 2021
Disposed-Court Date/Application Pending
Queens County, NY
Jan 11, 2023
Please wait a moment while we load this page.