Arteaga v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arteaga v. Martinez

79 A.D.3d 951, 912 N.Y.S.2d 902

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 21, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 951 (Arteaga v. Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arteaga v. Martinez, 79 A.D.3d 951, 912 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, nonparty Shmuel Agami, the plaintiffs attorney, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), dated October 5, 2009, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to impose a sanction upon him, to the extent of directing him to pay a sanction in the sum of $2,500 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[952]*952The appellant, attorney for the plaintiff, filed a notice of pendency against property owned solely by the defendant based upon the plaintiffs claim to equitable distribution. The filing of a notice of pendency against the defendant’s property based upon a claim of equitable distribution is completely without merit, since title, possession, use, or enjoyment of the subject property will not necessarily be affected (see Gross v Gross, 114 AD2d 1002, 1003 [1985]; Sehgal v Sehgal, 220 AD2d 201 [1995]; Fakiris v Fakiris, 177 AD2d 540, 543 [1991]). After the action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the appellant unreasonably delayed in canceling the notice of pendency, generating unnecessary motion practice. Under the circumstances, the award of a sanction in the sum of $2,500 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 was a provident exercise of discretion. Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, nonparty Shmuel Agami, the plaintiffs attorney, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), dated October 5, 2009, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to impose a sanction upon him, to the extent of directing him to pay a sanction in the sum of $2,500 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[952]*952The appellant, attorney for the plaintiff, filed a notice of pendency against property owned solely by the defendant based upon the plaintiffs claim to equitable distribution. The filing of a notice of pendency against the defendant’s property based upon a claim of equitable distribution is completely without merit, since title, possession, use, or enjoyment of the subject property will not necessarily be affected (see Gross v Gross, 114 AD2d 1002, 1003 [1985]; Sehgal v Sehgal, 220 AD2d 201 [1995]; Fakiris v Fakiris, 177 AD2d 540, 543 [1991]). After the action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the appellant unreasonably delayed in canceling the notice of pendency, generating unnecessary motion practice. Under the circumstances, the award of a sanction in the sum of $2,500 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 was a provident exercise of discretion. Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 951, 912 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arteaga-v-martinez-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack