GU v. Shugang Pang, Defendant. (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered on or about January 26, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions against defendant Hong Ji's attorney, Winnie Mok, Esq., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions against defendant's counsel for stating, in an attorney affirmation, that plaintiff was a “pro-se habitual litigant” and filed frivolous lawsuits in the past (see Pickens v. Castro, 55 A.D.3d 443, 444, 867 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept. 2008]).  These statements were absolutely privileged, as they were made in the course of a judicial proceeding and were pertinent to the question of whether plaintiff's claims against defendants had merit (see Pezhman v. Chanel, 157 A.D.3d 417, 67 N.Y.S.3d 618 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1018, 86 N.Y.S.3d 426, 111 N.E.3d 320 [2018], cert denied 586 U.S. 998, 139 S.Ct. 489, 202 L.Ed.2d 378 [2018];  see also Brady v. Gaudelli, 137 A.D.3d 951, 952, 27 N.Y.S.3d 205 [2d Dept. 2016]).  Plaintiff's argument that Mok violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and Judiciary Law § 487 is unpreserved for appellate review, as she failed to raise any of these arguments before the motion court (see Madison Ave. I LLC v. Marecheau, 187 A.D.3d 683, 684, 131 N.Y.S.3d 544 [1st Dept. 2020]).