Slabakis v. Poyiadjis
This text of Slabakis v. Poyiadjis (Slabakis v. Poyiadjis) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Slabakis v Poyiadjis
2026 NY Slip Op 04265
July 2, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Angelo Slabakis, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
Roys Poyiadjis et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Decided and Entered: July 02, 2026
Index No. 655855/18|Appeal No. 7018|Case No. 2025-04659|
Before: Moulton, J.P., Mendez, Gesmer, O'neill Levy, Michael, JJ.
Law Offices of Mario Biaggi, Jr., New York (Mario Biaggi, Jr of counsel), for appellant.
Archer & Greiner, P.C., New York (Anthony D. Dougherty of counsel), for respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered June 6, 2025, awarding defendants $24,045 plus interest for attorneys' fees arising from plaintiff's counsel's frivolous conduct, unanimously affirmed, with costs, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a determination of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by defendants in responding to this appeal.
Supreme Court was entitled, pursuant to CPLR 5019(a), to amend its November 8, 2024 order to reflect that the $24,045 awarded to defendants as a result of plaintiff's counsel's frivolous conduct was against plaintiff's counsel and not plaintiff himself. The November 8, 2024 order was "clearly inconsistent with the intentions of the court," as the court stated in its October 17, 2024 order sanctioning plaintiff's counsel for frivolous conduct (Salamone v Wincaf Props., 9 AD3d 127, 134 [1st Dept 2004], lv dismissed 4 NY3d 794 [2005]). The amendment was "ministerial" in nature and did not "affect substantial rights of the parties" (Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879, 881 [1995]), and did not require a motion by defendants for relief.
Under the circumstances, this appeal is frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and defendants should be reimbursed for their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this appeal (see Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP, 152 AD3d 1, 11 [1st Dept 2017]). Counsel's conduct appears to be a dilatory attempt to evade the court's order by shifting responsibility to his client for a substantial sanction imposed upon him for his frivolous conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.1.7[a][2]). Therefore, we remand this matter to Supreme Court for "a determination of the amount of expenses and costs including attorneys' fees incurred by defendants in defending this appeal, and for entry of an appropriate judgment as against plaintiff's attorney" (Boye, 152 AD3d at 11).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: July 2, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Slabakis v. Poyiadjis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slabakis-v-poyiadjis-nyappdiv-2026.