Benatovich v. Koessler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benatovich v. Koessler

209 A.D.2d 984, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11994

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1994·No. Appeal No. 2·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions against plaintiff for engaging in frivolous conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Plaintiff’s request that the court recuse itself from the proceeding on the Law Guardian’s fee application "was not an abuse of judicial process approaching sanctionable conduct” (Parks v Leahey & Johnson, 81 NY2d 161, 165; see, Matter of Bozer v Higgins, 204 AD2d 979; cf., Leventritt v Eckstein, 206 AD2d 313). The rule permitting the imposition of sanctions is designed to discourage abusive litigation tactics (see, Watson v City of New York, 178 AD2d 126, 128), not to resolve personal disagreements between an attorney and the court. Furthermore, even if sanctions were warranted, the court erred in imposing sanctions without affording plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to be heard (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]; Flaherty v Stavropoulos, 199 AD2d 301, 302). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Sanctions.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Wesley and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions against plaintiff for engaging in frivolous conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Plaintiff’s request that the court recuse itself from the proceeding on the Law Guardian’s fee application "was not an abuse of judicial process approaching sanctionable conduct” (Parks v Leahey & Johnson, 81 NY2d 161, 165; see, Matter of Bozer v Higgins, 204 AD2d 979; cf., Leventritt v Eckstein, 206 AD2d 313). The rule permitting the imposition of sanctions is designed to discourage abusive litigation tactics (see, Watson v City of New York, 178 AD2d 126, 128), not to resolve personal disagreements between an attorney and the court. Furthermore, even if sanctions were warranted, the court erred in imposing sanctions without affording plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to be heard (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]; Flaherty v Stavropoulos, 199 AD2d 301, 302). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Sanctions.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Wesley and Callahan, JJ.

Benatovich v. Koessler, 209 A.D.2d 984, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

209 A.D.2d 984 (Benatovich v. Koessler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related