Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Vivek NASTA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Roshini RAJAPAKSA, Defendant–Appellant, Manish Chopra, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered March 18, 2024 which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's breach of contract claim in its entirety and which, sua sponte, imposed monetary sanctions in the form of counsel fees on defendant, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the award of sanctions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The award of costs and sanctions was unwarranted under 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(c) in that defendant's motion to dismiss was granted in substantial part, and there was no evidence of “abusive, dilatory, or contumacious conduct by defendant[ ]” (Cepeda v. City of New York, 211 A.D.3d 570, 571, 181 N.Y.S.3d 208 [1st Dept. 2022]; see Levy v. Carol Mgt. Corp., 260 A.D.2d 27, 33, 698 N.Y.S.2d 226 [1st Dept. 1999]). Defendant's argument that she was entitled to test the sufficiency of plaintiff's amended complaint prior to proceeding to arbitration has a sound basis in the law (see e.g. Singer v. Jefferies & Co., 78 N.Y.2d 76, 85–86, 571 N.Y.S.2d 680, 575 N.E.2d 98 [1991]; Singer v. Seavey, 83 A.D.3d 481, 482, 923 N.Y.S.2d 29 [1st Dept. 2011]), and thus, pursuing resolution of her motion was not frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(c) (see Unobagha v. Hilton Garden Inn Times Sq. N., 216 A.D.3d 524, 525, 189 N.Y.S.3d 187 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 909, 2023 WL 8720877 [2023]).
The motion court properly declined to dismiss the remainder of plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Plaintiff alleged that, among other things, defendant failed to provide him with tax documents, information, and dividends related to his beneficial ownership of shares of stock, as required by the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement in their divorce action. As a result, this states “allegations from which damages may be inferred” sufficient to withstand defendant's motion at the pleading stage (Harmit Realties LLC, v. 835 Ave. of the Ams., L.P., 128 A.D.3d 460, 461, 9 N.Y.S.3d 42 [1st Dept. 2015]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3378
Decided: January 02, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)