Gamesmanship

Cram v Keller, 2018 NY Slip Op 08007 [2d Dept. 2018]

While defense counsel has the right to hold the plaintiff to the burden of proof on disputed issues, here, the record shows that the defendants’ ownership of the property was never genuinely disputed. In fact, Keller explicitly admitted in a portion of his deposition testimony not read by the plaintiff at trial that he and his wife owned the property. Defense counsel successfully objected to the reading of this testimony despite the lack of any apparent good faith basis in which to do so, making this an exercise in gamesmanship. The defendants did not offer any evidence at trial to dispute their ownership of the property. At an early stage of the case, the defendants submitted an answer to the complaint in which they denied having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the plaintiff’s allegation of the defendants’ ownership of the subject property. While the answer was verified by counsel, it is difficult to accept the denial of information sufficient to form a belief as to ownership as having been asserted in good faith, as there is no reason to believe that the defendants did not know that they owned the property, given that Keller admitted at his deposition that he and his wife owned the property. While the defendants did not amend their answer after Keller’s deposition, plaintiff’s counsel knew that the defendants did not dispute ownership and defense counsel knew that as well. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants’ posttrial motion to set aside the verdict, to the extent predicated on the issue of ownership, was frivolous, given the evidence presented by the plaintiff at trial, the failure of the defendants to offer any contrary evidence at trial, the known fact that the defendants owned the property, the lack of good faith underlying the denial of ownership appearing in the defendants’ answer, and the lack of a good faith basis for the exclusion of the additional deposition testimony that would have eliminated any doubt on the issue of ownership.

Sanctions and Contempt (civil and criminal)

Visual Arts Found., Inc. v Egnasko, 2012 NY Slip Op 00646 (1st Dept., 2012)

The motion court improperly denied plaintiff's request for sanctions in its entirety. The court is directed to conduct a hearing to quantify the damages that plaintiff incurred from those [*2]aspects of defendants' litigation conduct that were "frivolous," including, impending discovery, the filing of meritless counterclaims and conduct which was "undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation" (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][2]). We note that, as Louis Egnasko is presently incarcerated, the hearing may be conducted through written submissions (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[d]).

Pentalpha Enters., Ltd. v Cooper & Dunham LLP, 2012 NY Slip Op 00044 (1st Dept., 2012)

Plaintiffs now appeal, having lost in no fewer than four courts of competent jurisdiction, and despite having been warned in the court below that any further prosecution of this matter [*2]would be dangerously close to sanctionable conduct. We are of the opinion that plaintiffs' appeal must, again, be denied on the merits; and that, with this appeal, the conduct of plaintiffs and their attorneys has crossed the line from zealous advocacy to that which is sanctionable under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Kernell, 2012 NY Slip Op 00482 (2nd Dept., 2012)

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his motion which was to hold the plaintiff's counsel in civil contempt. "In order to find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect," and "[i]t must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed" (Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583; see Rubin v Rubin, 78 AD3d 812, 813). In this case, there was no order of the court in effect, expressing an unequivocal mandate, which the plaintiff's counsel disobeyed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion (see Wheels Am. N.Y., Ltd v Montalvo, 50 AD3d 1130, 1130-1131).

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion, however, in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and its counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. The defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff and its counsel engaged in frivolous conduct in that they either did not have the necessary documentation upon which to formulate or support a meritorious claim, or, being in possession of the documentation, knew or should have known, based upon prior litigation and correspondence from the defendant, that the plaintiff's claim was completely without merit in law. Under the circumstances, we deem it [*2]appropriate to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500, and upon the plaintiff's counsel in the sum of $1,000 (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1), payable pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.3.

HSBC Mtge. Corp. v Oberlander, 2012 NY Slip Op 00335 (2nd Dept., 2012)

"A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" (Chambers v Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 AD3d 944, 946; see Educational Reading Aids Corp. v Young, 175 AD2d 152). "In order to prevail on such a motion, the moving party must demonstrate that the party charged with contempt violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court, thereby prejudicing the moving party's rights" (Bais Yoel Ohel Feige v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc., 78 AD3d 626, 626; see McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226; Chambers v Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 AD3d at 946; Matter of Rothschild v Edwards, 63 AD3d 744, 745; Galanos v Galanos, 46 AD3d 507, 508; Rienzi v Rienzi, 23 AD3d 447, 449).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the motion of the defendant David Oberlander which was to hold the plaintiff and its attorneys in civil contempt for transferring title to the subject real property while a stay pending the hearing and determination of an appeal was in effect. Oberlander failed to meet his burden so as to warrant holding the plaintiff and its attorneys in civil contempt.

Town Bd. of Town of Southampton v R.K.B. Realty, LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 00200 (2nd Dept., 2012)

"To sustain a finding of either civil or criminal contempt based on an alleged violation of a court order it is necessary to establish that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect," that "the order has been disobeyed," and that the charged party "had knowledge of the court's order" (Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 240; see Town of Copake v 13 Lackawanna Props., LLC, 73 AD3d 1308, 1309). The same act may be punishable as both a criminal and civil contempt (see Town of Copake v 13 Lackawanna Props., LLC, 73 AD3d at 1309). Civil contempt must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and requires a showing that the rights of a party have been prejudiced (see McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226; Incorporated Vil. of Plandome Manor v Ioannou, 54 AD3d 365, 366). Such a showing is not needed to prove criminal contempt "since the right of the private parties to the litigation is not the controlling factor" (Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d at 240). "A key distinguishing element between civil and criminal contempt is the degree of willfulness of the subject conduct. To be found guilty of criminal contempt, the contemnor usually must be shown to have violated the order with a higher degree of willfulness than is required in a civil contempt proceeding" (id.; McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d at 226; Dalessio v Kressler, 6 AD3d 57, 66). Moreover, criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see Muraca v

No Sua Sponte

Gosine v Sahabir, 2012 NY Slip Op 00751 (2nd Dept., 2012)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, appointing a receiver to operate the business affairs of Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha of the West Indies, Inc. (hereinafter SDMS), until an upcoming election of the board of trustees, since no party asked for that relief, and there was no evidence that SDMS's assets were susceptible to waste or that such a drastic remedy was warranted (see Quick v Quick, 69 AD3d 828; Ugiri Progressive Community, Inc. v Ukwuozo, 57 AD3d 656; Vardaris Tech, Inc. v Paleros Inc., 49 AD3d 631, 632; Natoli v Milazzo, 35 AD3d 823; Rotary Watches [USA] v Greene, 266 AD2d 527; Schachner v Sikowitz, 94 AD2d 709).

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion, inter alia, to confirm the results of the election purportedly conducted on December 3, 2010. The record establishes that the receiver adjourned the meeting prior to opening the polls. While the minutes of the meeting indicate that the plaintiff Vena Gosine collected ballots after the meeting was adjourned, she was not a presiding officer authorized to "receive the votes, judge the qualifications of the voters, and declare the results of the votes cast" under SDMS's constitution. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion, among other things, to confirm the results of the purported election should have been denied.

Since the Supreme Court considered neither the defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel, nor their cross motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130—1.1 to impose sanctions on the plaintiffs and their attorney, on the merits, we must remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for determination of the motion and cross motion (see Hunter Sports Shooting Grounds, Inc. v Foley, 73 AD3d 702). Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings before a different Justice.

Ouch

Weisburst v Dreifus, 2011 NY Slip Op 08207 (1st Dept., 2011)

The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant's underlying motion for an emergency stay contained "false charges [against plaintiff] that were expressed by means of a tortured and very partial rendering of the facts that can only have been deliberately crafted to mislead" and was therefore frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see e.g. Rogovin v Rogovin, 27 AD3d 233 [2006]).

Bad Subpoena: everyone gets sanctioned

22 NYCRR 130-1.1 Costs; sanctions

Duval v Duval, 2011 NY Slip Op 05657 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, under the particular circumstances of this case, the appeal from the judgment brings up for review the orders dated January 22, 2010, and January 26, 2010 (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and her counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Under the circumstances presented, the conduct of the plaintiff and her counsel in obtaining a "so-ordered" subpoena duces tecum and serving it upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center to obtain the defendant's medical records prior to filing a note of issue and before a trial date was set was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c), as it was completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, pretrial disclosure on the issue of child custody is permissible with respect to a parent's  health, since the parties to a contested custody proceeding place their physical and mental conditions in issue (see Torelli v Torelli, 50 AD3d 1125, 1125; Anonymous v Anonymous, 5 AD3d 516, 517; Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 107 AD2d 292, 293-294). Here, however, in her attempt to obtain pretrial disclosure of the defendant's medical records in connection with the issue of child custody, the plaintiff sought a "so-ordered" trial subpoena duces tecum from the Supreme Court, thereby obviating the need to obtain the defendant's written authorization to release the records. The plaintiff also failed to serve the subpoena on the defendant in a timely manner, thus depriving him of the opportunity to request withdrawal of the subpoena or to make a timely motion to quash. Moreover, it can be inferred from the record that the challenged conduct was designed primarily to harass and maliciously injure the defendant (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]). In view of the foregoing, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and her counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 should have been granted, and accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing on the issue of the amount of an appropriate sanction to be imposed upon the plaintiff and her counsel.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, with limited exception, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress all information relating to the contents of records produced in response to the subpoena duces tecum served upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center and to preclude the plaintiff from using such information. Under the circumstances of this case, suppression and preclusion, along with the imposition of a sanction, were the appropriate remedies for the improper manner in which those records were obtained (see CPLR 3103[c]). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress all information relating to the contents of records produced in response to the subpoena served upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center and to preclude the plaintiff from using such information should have been granted in its entirety, with a directive that the plaintiff and her counsel deliver all records produced in response to the aforementioned subpoena to the defendant and to affirm that all such records, and any copies thereof, have been so returned and/or destroyed and were not transmitted to any third party.

 

RJ and CE and EE

Breslin Realty Dev. Corp. v Shaw, 2010 NY Slip Op 00087 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

II. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment precludes reconsideration of all claims which could have or should have been litigated in the prior proceedings against the same party (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347). The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in the prior action or proceeding, and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 501-502). Once the party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel establishes that the identical issue was "material" (emphasis supplied) to a prior judicial or quasi-judicial determination, the party to be estopped bears the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action or proceeding (id.). Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the proponent of the doctrine of collateral estoppel need not demonstrate that the particular theory in support of a cause of action was actually raised and litigated in the prior action or proceeding (see Matter of Schulz v New York State Legislature, 278 AD2d 710, 711; Williams v Steinberg, 211 AD2d 597; Lanzano v City of New York, 202 AD2d 378, 379; Sokol v Sokol, 113 F3d 303, 306).

Where the prior adjudication involved the same parties and the same cause of action, res judicata applies. "Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the parties on the same cause of action . . . As a general rule, once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'" (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347, quoting O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; see Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v HSBC Bank USA, 10 NY3d 32).

Union St. Tower, LLC v Richmond, 2011 NY Slip Op 03834 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The doctrine of res judicata " operates to preclude the renewal of issues actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding as well as claims for different relief which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding'" (Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007, quoting Koether v Generalow, 213 AD2d 379, 380). To determine what "factual grouping" constitutes a "transaction," the court must consider how " the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether . . . their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage'" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193, quoting Restatement, Judgments 2d [Tent Draft No. 1], § 61; see Braunstein v Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53). Under New York's transactional approach to the doctrine of res judicata, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" (O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357).

The first and second counterclaims in this action are barred by res judicata because those claims could have been resolved in the March 2004 action (see Jennings v City of Glens Falls Indus. Dev. Agency, 9 AD3d 773, 774). These counterclaims, when compared with the causes of action in the March 2004 action "are related in time, space, origin, [and] motivation" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d at 192-193). They (1) originate from the identical agreement, (2) span the same period of time, (3) involve the same chief participants, and (4) involve the same motivation of Richmond to reclaim an ownership interest in Lot 4. "Under these circumstances, it is almost impossible to resist the conclusion that the over-all transaction here formed a convenient trial unit and that this view conforms to reasonable expectations" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d at 193 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Vitello v Amboy Bus Co., 83 AD3d 932 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded from "relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same" (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). Two elements must be established: (1) that "the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is decisive in the present action"; and (2) that the precluded party "must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination" (D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664 [1990]). Collateral estoppel is applicable to quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies, including the WCB (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d at 499; O'Gorman v Journal News Westchester, 2 AD3d 815, 816 [2003]; Rigopolous v American Museum of Natural History, 297 AD2d 728, 729 [2002]).

Here, the Decision of the WCB does not collaterally estop the defendant from arguing that it was the plaintiff's employer, because there is no indication in the record that this was a disputed issue at the workers' compensation proceeding or that the WCB specifically adjudicated this issue (see Weitz v Anzek Constr. Corp., 65 AD3d 678, 679 [2009]; Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., 257 AD2d 586, 587 [1999]). Therefore, the Supreme Court improperly concluded that the defendant was collaterally estopped from arguing that it was the plaintiff's employer.

John Hollings, Inc. v Nick & Duke, LLC, 83 AD3d 444 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The issue whether plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of its use of the subject premises was fully and fairly litigated, and necessarily decided, in the prior Civil Court proceeding (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). Plaintiff's eviction was based on uncured lease violations alone and had no connection to the wrongs it alleges against defendants in this action.

We find that plaintiff's conduct in commencing this action was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Town of Huntington v Beechwood Carmen Bldg. Corp., 82 AD3d 1203 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding" (Goldstein v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 32 AD3d 821, 821 [2006]; see Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v Feldstein, 72 AD3d 890, 893 [2010]). "A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata" (Liberty Assoc. v Etkin, 69 AD3d 681, 682-683 [2010]; see Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v Feldstein, 72 AD3d at 893). Here, the Town's current claims against SBJ were either raised or could have been raised in the previous action which was discontinued with prejudice against SBJ and, thus, the Town is precluded under principles of res judicata from litigating claims against SBJ arising from the same transaction. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against SBJ.

OrthoTec, LLC v Healthpoint Capital, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 04533 (App. DIv., 1st 2011)

To be sure, "collateral estoppel will bar the subsequent independent action . . . if . . . the moving party was in fact given a hearing on the motion that was the equivalent of a trial with oral testimony" (id. at 668, 123 Cal Rptr 2d at 170-171 [emphasis added]). However, plaintiff was not given such a hearing. It was given the opportunity for a hearing, but it chose not to exercise that opportunity.

Defendants' reliance on Barker v Hull (191 Cal App 3d 221, 226, 236 Cal Rptr 285, 289 [1987]) is unavailing, since the evidence on the motion which led to the decision to which defendants seek to give preclusive effect was indeed restricted.

Dier v Suffolk County Water Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 03993 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court erred in concluding that the appellant is estopped from asserting a defense based on the plaintiff's failure to serve a timely notice of claim. Equitable estoppel against a public corporation will lie only when the conduct of the public corporation was calculated to, or negligently did, mislead or discourage a party from serving a timely notice of claim, and when that conduct was justifiably relied upon by that party (see Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662; Dorce v United Rentals N. Am., Inc., 78 AD3d 1110, 1111; Vandermast v New York City Tr. Auth., 71 AD3d 1127; Mohl v Town of Riverhead, 62 AD3d 969; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the appellant engaged in any misleading conduct that would support a finding of equitable estoppel (see Dorce v United Rentals N. Am., Inc., 78 AD3d at 1111; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677; Walter H. Poppe Gen. Contr. v Town of Ramapo, 280 AD2d 667, 668; Cappadonna v New York City Tr. Auth., 187 AD2d 691, 692; Nicholas v City of New York, 130 AD2d 470). The fact that the appellant conducted an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h prior to making its motion to dismiss does not justify a finding of estoppel (see Hochberg v City of New York, 63 NY2d 665; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677; Rodriguez v City of New York, 169 AD2d 532, 533; Ceely v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 162 AD2d 492). Accordingly, the appellant's motion, in effect, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for the plaintiff's failure to serve a timely notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) should have been granted.

Consolidaton and sanctions: CPLR § 602

CPLR § 602

Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v Galasso, 2011 NY Slip Op 01430 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"A motion for consolidation is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and absent a showing of substantial prejudice by the party opposing the motion, consolidation is proper where there are common questions of law and fact" (RCN Constr. Corp. v Fleet Bank, N.A., 34 AD3d 776, 777). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate, as there were no common questions of law and fact. The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in granting the cross motion of the plaintiffs in Action Nos. 1 and 2 to impose sanctions against the appellant (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]; Tornheim v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 73 AD3d 749).

Sanctions (22 NYCRR 130-1.1) and Contempt. A non-party can’t be sanctioned under 130-1.1

Thankfully, these are short decisions.

22 NYCRR 130-1.1 Costs; sanctions

Singer v New York City Tr. Auth., 2009 NY Slip Op 07956 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying
plaintiff's motion for sanctions, which was brought eight months after
the trial had concluded with a verdict in plaintiff's favor. While the
trial court had stated that plaintiff could move for sanctions
"whenever [she] wish[ed] to," this remark did not provide plaintiff
with an unlimited period of time to bring the motion, and as the court
found, the eight-month delay was unreasonable
.

Ficus Invs., Inc. v Private Capital Mgt., L.L.C., 2009 NY Slip Op 07493 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered
September 10, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by
the brief, granted plaintiffs' motion to hold defendant Christopher
Chalavoutis in civil contempt, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates that in February 2008 defendant was
instrumental in negotiating the conveyance of certain mortgages without
providing notice to plaintiffs, thereby disobeying an order of the
court, entered December 21, 2007, that prohibited defendant from taking
any action with respect to the subject mortgages "without first
providing 48 hour[] written notice" to counsel for plaintiffs. The
record further demonstrates that defendant's actions were calculated to
impair, impede or prejudice plaintiffs' rights
(see Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983]).

Joan 2000, Ltd. v Deco Constr. Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 07593 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, sanctions may be imposed against a party or the attorney for a party for frivolous conduct (see
22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]).
Conduct is frivolous if it is completely without
merit in law or fact and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument
for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; it is
taken to primarily delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation,
or harass or maliciously injure another; or it asserts material factual
statements that are false (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]; Mascia v Maresco, 39 AD3d 504; Greene v Doral Conference Ctr. Assoc.,
18 AD3d 429, 431). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its
discretion in imposing a sanction upon Eric W. Berry, the attorney for
the defendant WBP Central Associates, LLC, as his conduct was not
frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1
(see Wagner v Goldberg, 293 AD2d 527; Matter of Gavilanes v Dilan, 281 AD2d 546).

Additionally, the Supreme Court had no authority to impose a sanction
upon Anthony Piazza pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, since he is neither a
party to this action nor an attorney
(see Brock v Wagner, 283 AD2d 535; Saastomoinen v Pagano, 278 AD2d 218).

G&T Term. Packaging Co. Inc. v Western Growers Assn., 2009 NY Slip Op 07503 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion by determining that
plaintiffs' conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR
130-1.1(c)(2) (see Pickens v Castro, 55 AD3d 443,
444 [2008]). Contrary to plaintiffs' claim, courts take into
consideration the entire dispute between the parties, not just the
lawsuit in which sanctions are imposed (see Murray v National Broadcasting Co., 217 AD2d 651, 653 [1995]; Matter of Jemzura v Mugglin, 207 AD2d 645 [1994], appeal dismissed
84 NY2d 977 [1994]). If plaintiffs wished to litigate the underlying
merits of the parties' dispute, e.g., the quality of the produce sold
by one of the defendants to one of the plaintiffs (see 56 AD3d 266 [2008], appeal dismissed 12 NY3d 729 [2009]), they should have
pursued their federal appeals
(see generally Jason v Chusid, 172 AD2d 172, 173 [1991], lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1008 [1991]).

The bold is mine.

Sanctions!

22 NYCRR 130-1.1 Costs; sanctions

CPLR R. 2106 Affirmation of truth of statement by attorney, physician, osteopath or dentist

Caplan v Tofel, 2009 NY Slip Op 06658 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion
in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was to impose a
sanction upon the plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for frivolous
conduct. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the record supports
the Supreme Court's finding that he engaged in frivolous conduct by
instituting this action for the primary purpose of delaying enforcement
of the defendants' judgment (see Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Ref. Pro. Dutch Church of City of N.Y. v 198 Broadway, 76
NY2d 411). However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its
discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was
to impose a sanction upon the plaintiff's counsel, based upon its
finding that counsel was not fully aware of the history of prior
litigation between the parties.

The continuation of the same patently meritless arguments on
appeal would appear to constitute frivolous conduct, and therefore we
direct counsel for the parties to show cause why additional sanctions
should or should not be imposed (see Good Old Days Tavern, Inc. v Zwirn, 271 AD2d 270; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]).

Matter of Nazario v Ciafone, 2009 NY Slip Op 06691 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In support of that branch of the petition which was to compel the
appellant to turn over the petitioner's file to her new attorney, the
petitioner presented proof that on January 25, 2007, the appellant
received her letter discharging him as her attorney and requesting him
to turn over her file. In opposition, the appellant submitted his
affirmation in support of his claims that the petitioner had given him
more time to work on her file and that he had a common-law retaining
lien on the file to secure his right to reimbursement of disbursements (see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 457-459; Lelekakis v Kamamis, 8 AD3d 630; Lansky v Easow, 304 AD2d 533; Landy v Jacobs, 284
AD2d 432). The appellant is a party to this proceeding; therefore, his
submission of an affirmation rather than an affidavit was insufficient
to oppose the petition because it was not in admissible form (see CPLR 2106
; Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel, 53 NY2d 799, 801 n *; Pisacreta v Minniti, 265 AD2d 540; Lauer v Rapp, 190
AD2d 778). Furthermore, he failed to submit any proof demonstrating
that he had earned any fee or was entitled to recover any disbursements
that had been paid prior to the effective date of the discharge (cf. Lelekakis v Kamamis, 8 AD3d 630; Lansky v Easow, 304 AD2d 533; Security Credit Sys. v Perfetto, 242 AD2d 871; Roskind v Brown, 29
AD2d 549, 550). Accordingly, the court properly granted that branch of
the petition which was to compel the appellant to turn over the
petitioner's file to her new attorney without holding an expedited
hearing, since the appellant's papers in opposition failed to raise an
issue of fact regarding a retaining lien for disbursements.

Furthermore, the court providently exercised its discretion in
granting that branch of the petition which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR
130-1.1 for an award of costs and the imposition of sanctions [*2]against
the appellant. Contrary to the appellant's contention, since the
petitioner expressly requested the subject relief in her motion papers,
and the appellant was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to oppose
the motion, a hearing was not required (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[d]
; Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church of City of N.Y. v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411, 413 n; Matter of Balsamo, 55 AD3d 905, 906; Wesche v Wesche, 51 AD3d 909, 910; RCN Constr. Corp. v Fleet Bank, N.A., 34 AD3d 776).

The bold is mine.

22 NYCRR 130-1.1;

22 NYCRR 130-1.1 Costs; sanctions

(a) Appeals as of right
2. from an order not specified in subdivision 

(c) Appeals by permission

CPLR § 5701 Appeals to appellate division from supreme and county courts

RKO Props. Ltd. v Boymelgreen, 2009 NY Slip Op 03709 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

"[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete
document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its
terms'" (Reiss v Financial Performance Corp., 97 NY2d 195, 198, quoting W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77
NY2d 157, 162). Here, contrary to the appellants' contention, the
Supreme Court did not rewrite the parties' stipulation of settlement.
Rather, by directing the appellants to provide the general releases to
the respondents, the court properly enforced the stipulation according
to its terms. By agreeing to the subsequent stipulation and order dated
August 16, 2007, and accepting payment of the settlement amount, the
plaintiff waived any alleged breach of the stipulation of settlement.

The appeal from so much of the order entered January 28, 2008,
as, sua sponte, directed a hearing must be dismissed, as no appeal lies
as of right from an order entered sua sponte or from an order directing
a hearing, and leave to appeal from that portion of the order has not
been granted (see CPLR 5701[a][2]
, [c]; Shabtai v City of New York, 308 AD2d 532, 533; Matter of Kohn v Lawrence, 240 AD2d 496, 496-497).

Badillo v Badillo, 2009 NY Slip Op 03681 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Under the circumstances herein, the plaintiff did not engage in
sanctionable conduct by opposing the defendant's motion
, inter alia, to
vacate a portion of a prior support order (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Rennie-Otote v Otote, 15 AD3d 380, 381; Hamilton v Cordero, 10 AD3d 702, 703; Stow v Stow, 262 AD2d 550, 551; see also Arciniega v Arciniega,
48 AD3d 607). Moreover, the Supreme Court did not follow the proper
procedure for imposing a sanction, since it failed to specify in a
written decision the conduct upon which the award was based, the
reasons why it found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons the
sanction was fixed in the sum indicated
(see 22 NYCRR 130-1.2; Rennie-Otote v Otote, 15 AD3d at 381; Hamilton v Cordero, 10 AD3d at 703; Miller v DeCongilio, 269 AD2d 504; Gossett v Firestar Affiliates, 224 AD2d 487).
The plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court improperly
denied her request for sanctions against the defendant is not properly
before this Court
(see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[d]; Kane v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 40 AD3d 1040, 1041-1042; Jandru Mats v Riteway AV Corp., 1 AD3d 565, 566; Telemark Constr. v Fleetwood & Assoc., 236 AD2d 462; see also Matter of Mercury Ins. Group v Ocana, 46 AD3d 561, 562).

The bold is mine.