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.
Helene Perna, respondent, v. Reality Roofing, Inc., et al., appellants.
Argued—October 20, 2014
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief and a letter dated August 4, 2014, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), entered January 18, 2013, as denied that branch of their motion which was to impose a sanction upon the plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
“Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1, sanctions may be imposed against a party or the party's attorney for frivolous conduct” (Keyspan Generation, LLC v. Nassau County, 118 AD3d 949, 954; see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1[b] ). “ ‘Conduct during litigation, including on an appeal, is frivolous and subject to sanction and/or the award of costs when it is completely without merit in law or fact and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or it asserts material factual statements that are false’ ” (Keyspan Generation, LLC v. Nassau County, 118 AD3d at 954, quoting Mascia v. Maresco, 39 AD3d 504, 505; see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1). “The decision of whether to award sanctions and the amount or nature of those sanctions is generally entrusted to the trial court's sound discretion” (Matter of Khan–Soleil v. Rashad, 111 AD3d 727, 728). Here, contrary to the defendants' contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was to impose a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1, including an award of attorney's fees (see Freight Brokers Global Servs., Inc. v Molfetta, 90 AD3d 828, 828–829; Kaplon–Belo Assoc., Inc. v. D'Angelo, 79 AD3d 931, 931).
RIVERA, J.P., SKELOS, DICKERSON and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2013–03030 (Index No. 9461 /12)
Decided: November 19, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)