Hutter v. Citibank, N.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hutter v. Citibank, N.A.

142 A.D.3d 1049, 38 N.Y.S.3d 35

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2016

Docket2014-06732

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 142 A.D.3d 1049 (Hutter v. Citibank, N.A.) 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

Hutter v. Citibank, N.A., 142 A.D.3d 1049, 38 N.Y.S.3d 35 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, West-chester County (Walker, J.), dated June 4, 2014, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Watermark Capital, Inc., Nicholas Joutz, and Clint Elliott which was for an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The court rule set forth in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, which is intended to limit frivolous and harassing behavior, authorizes a court, in its discretion, to award a party in a civil action reasonable attorney’s fees resulting from frivolous conduct” (Matter of Miller v Miller, 96 AD3d 943, 944 [2012] [citations omitted]). Conduct is frivolous if, inter alia, it is “completely without merit in law” or “undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1], [2]; see Matter of Ernestine R., 61 AD3d 874, 876 [2009]). “In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and *1050 whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]).

Here, in light of the plaintiffs frivolous conduct in delaying her discontinuance of the action insofar as asserted against the respondents, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for an award of attorney’s fees and costs against the plaintiff (see Fiber Consultants, Inc. v Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 56 AD3d 605, 606 [2008]; Kornblum v Kornblum, 34 AD3d 749, 751 [2006]; Pappas & Marshall v Ross Logistics, 222 AD2d 424, 425 [1995]).

Mastro, J.R, Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, West-chester County (Walker, J.), dated June 4, 2014, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Watermark Capital, Inc., Nicholas Joutz, and Clint Elliott which was for an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The court rule set forth in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, which is intended to limit frivolous and harassing behavior, authorizes a court, in its discretion, to award a party in a civil action reasonable attorney’s fees resulting from frivolous conduct” (Matter of Miller v Miller, 96 AD3d 943, 944 [2012] [citations omitted]). Conduct is frivolous if, inter alia, it is “completely without merit in law” or “undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1], [2]; see Matter of Ernestine R., 61 AD3d 874, 876 [2009]). “In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and *1050 whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]).

Here, in light of the plaintiffs frivolous conduct in delaying her discontinuance of the action insofar as asserted against the respondents, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for an award of attorney’s fees and costs against the plaintiff (see Fiber Consultants, Inc. v Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 56 AD3d 605, 606 [2008]; Kornblum v Kornblum, 34 AD3d 749, 751 [2006]; Pappas & Marshall v Ross Logistics, 222 AD2d 424, 425 [1995]).

Mastro, J.R, Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 1049, 38 N.Y.S.3d 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutter-v-citibank-na-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack