Matter of Congregation Ahavas Moische, Inc. v. Katzoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Congregation Ahavas Moische, Inc. v. Katzoff

134 A.D.3d 934, 20 N.Y.S.3d 895

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2015·No. 2014-01342·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 7, 2013, as denied their motion and cross motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to impose costs and sanctions against the respondents and/or their counsel.

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

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, sanctions and/or costs may be imposed against a party or the party’s counsel for frivolous conduct (see Genco v Genco, 124 AD3d 580, 580 [2015]). Conduct is frivolous if (1) 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; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]; Tso-Horiuchi v Horiuchi, 122 AD3d 918, 918 [2014]). “[T]he decision whether to impose costs or sanctions against a party for frivolous conduct, and the amount of any such costs or sanctions, is generally entrusted to the court’s sound discretion” (Coccia v Liotti, 129 AD3d 763, 764 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the petitioners failed to establish that the respondents’ making of two motions to disqualify their counsel and other al *935 leged conduct of the respondents and their attorney in this proceeding were frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see 5000, Inc. v Hudson One, Inc., 130 AD3d 678, 680 [2015]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion and cross motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to impose sanctions and costs against the respondents and/or their counsel. Dillon, J.R, Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 7, 2013, as denied their motion and cross motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to impose costs and sanctions against the respondents and/or their counsel.

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

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, sanctions and/or costs may be imposed against a party or the party’s counsel for frivolous conduct (see Genco v Genco, 124 AD3d 580, 580 [2015]). Conduct is frivolous if (1) 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; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]; Tso-Horiuchi v Horiuchi, 122 AD3d 918, 918 [2014]). “[T]he decision whether to impose costs or sanctions against a party for frivolous conduct, and the amount of any such costs or sanctions, is generally entrusted to the court’s sound discretion” (Coccia v Liotti, 129 AD3d 763, 764 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the petitioners failed to establish that the respondents’ making of two motions to disqualify their counsel and other al *935 leged conduct of the respondents and their attorney in this proceeding were frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see 5000, Inc. v Hudson One, Inc., 130 AD3d 678, 680 [2015]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion and cross motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to impose sanctions and costs against the respondents and/or their counsel. Dillon, J.R, Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Matter of Congregation Ahavas Moische, Inc. v. Katzoff, 134 A.D.3d 934, 20 N.Y.S.3d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

134 A.D.3d 934 (Matter of Congregation Ahavas Moische, Inc. v. Katzoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related