CHRISTOPULOS v. Nicholas Spyreas, appellant. (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the defendant Nicholas Spyreas appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Frederick D.R. Sampson, J.), entered October 21, 2021.  The order granted the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant Nicholas Spyreas in civil contempt for his failure to comply with so much of an order of the same court dated January 29, 2021, as directed him to pay sanctions in the sum of $10,000.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the plaintiff is directed to file an affirmation or affidavit as to the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses he incurred in defending against this appeal, with proof of service thereof, with the Clerk of this Court, on or before April 14, 2025;  the defendant Nicholas Spyreas may file an affirmation or affidavit in response to the plaintiff's affirmation or affidavit on or before April 28, 2025, if so advised;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The contentions of the defendant Nicholas Spyreas (hereinafter the defendant) that the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant in civil contempt for his failure to comply with so much of an order dated January 29, 2021, as directed him to pay sanctions in the sum of $10,000 was not properly served and that the order to show cause was defective were raised in the defendant's subsequent motion to dismiss the plaintiff's contempt motion.  The defendant's motion to dismiss has been addressed on a related appeal from an order entered November 8, 2021, which, inter alia, denied that motion (see Christopulos v. Christopulos, ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2025 WL 778682 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2021–08424;  decided herewith]).

The defendant failed to file papers in opposition to the plaintiff's contempt motion.  Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered without opposition from the appealing party (see CPLR 5511;  Federal Nat. Mtge. Assn. v. Vivenzio, 229 A.D.3d 510, 216 N.Y.S.3d 605;  Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 266 A.D.2d 397, 698 N.Y.S.2d 323).

We agree with the plaintiff that the defendant has engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(c) in pursuing this appeal, which lacks merit in either fact or law (see Laurenzano v. Laurenzano, 208 A.D.2d 808, 809, 617 N.Y.S.2d 859).  We further note that this Court previously warned the defendant “that future submissions to this Court that qualify as frivolous conduct may result in the imposition of sanctions against him pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1” (Christopulos v. Christopulos, 208 A.D.3d 746, 747, 172 N.Y.S.3d 622).  As such, we find that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for costs in the form of reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in defending against this appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1[a]).  Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to submit an affirmation or affidavit as to the amount of such fees and expenses (see Webb v. Greater N.Y. Auto. Dealers Assn., Inc., 144 A.D.3d 1134, 42 N.Y.S.3d 324).

BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.