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.
ALBERT G. FRACCOLA, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 50% SHAREHOLDER, OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF 1ST CHOICE REALTY, INC., PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. 1ST CHOICE REALTY, INC., PHYLLIS FRACCOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 50% SHAREHOLDER, OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF 1ST CHOICE REALTY, INC., PHYLLIS FRACCOLA AS SHAREHOLDER OF HYDRANIA, INC., DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ALBERT G. FRACCOLA, JR., PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PRO SE.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the second, third and fourth ordering paragraphs, and as modified the order and judgment is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Oneida County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment that, inter alia, denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a prior order and imposed sanctions in the form of costs and attorney's fees. We conclude that plaintiff's challenge to the validity of the prior order on the ground that Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction is barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata because that issue has previously been fully litigated and determined to be without merit (see generally Zayatz v. Collins, 48 AD3d 1287, 1289–1290; Tuper v. Tuper, 34 AD3d 1280, 1282). We further conclude, however, that the court erred in failing to comply with 22 NYCRR 130–1.2 inasmuch as it failed to set forth in a written decision “the conduct on which ․ the imposition [of sanctions] is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount ․ imposed to be appropriate” (see Ikeda v. Tedesco, 70 AD3d 1498, 1499). We therefore modify the order and judgment by vacating the award of costs and attorney's fees, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for compliance with 22 NYCRR 130–1.2.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 14–00964
Decided: January 02, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)