GULIYEV v. HAN (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Robin K. Sheares, J.), dated August 16, 2021, (2) an order of the same court dated November 8, 2021, and (3) an order of the same court dated June 2, 2022, and nonparty Law Offices of William Pager appeals from the orders dated November 8, 2021, and June 2, 2022.  The order dated August 16, 2021, granted the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement agreement and compel the plaintiff to execute a release and stipulation of discontinuance, to dismiss the complaint, and pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for an award of attorneys' fees and costs.  The order dated November 8, 2021, after a hearing, awarded the defendants attorneys' fees and costs in the sum of $4,297.50, payable by the plaintiff and nonparty Law Offices of William Pager, jointly and severally.  The order dated June 2, 2022, in effect, denied the motion of nonparty Law Offices of William Pager, in effect, to vacate so much of the order dated November 8, 2021, as awarded the defendants attorneys' fees and costs payable by nonparty Law Offices of William Pager.

ORDERED that the order dated August 16, 2021, is affirmed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated November 8, 2021, is affirmed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal by the plaintiff from the order dated June 2, 2022, is dismissed, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved by that order (see CPLR 5511;  Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 144, 904 N.Y.S.2d 132);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated June 2, 2022, is affirmed on the appeal by nonparty Law Offices of William Pager;  and it is further,

ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, the parties are directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing sanctions and/or costs, if any, including appellate counsel fees, upon the plaintiff and nonparty Law Offices of William Pager pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 as this Court may deem appropriate, by uploading an affirmation or affidavit on that issue, including the amounts of legal fees incurred by the defendants in connection with this appeal, with proof of service thereof, to NYSCEF, on or before August 7, 2026;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon the parties to these appeals, via upload to NYSCEF;  and it is further,

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

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries.  In February 2019, the plaintiff's former counsel accepted an offer to settle the plaintiff's claims for $1,500.  In an order dated October 22, 2020, the Supreme Court adopted the finding of a referee, made after a hearing, that the plaintiff's former counsel had the apparent authority to accept the settlement offer and granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 2104 to enforce the settlement agreement.

In April 2021, the plaintiff's new counsel, Law Offices of William Pager (hereinafter Pager and together with the plaintiff, the appellants), returned the settlement check and an unsigned general release and stipulation of discontinuance to the defendants without explanation.  Thereafter, the defendants moved to enforce the settlement agreement and compel the plaintiff to execute the release and stipulation of discontinuance, to dismiss the complaint, and pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for an award of attorneys' fees and costs (hereinafter the sanctions motion).  In an order dated August 16, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the sanctions motion and directed the parties to appear for a hearing on the amount of attorneys' fees.  In an order dated November 8, 2021, the court, after a hearing, awarded the defendants attorneys' fees and costs in the sum of $4,297.50, payable by the plaintiff and Pager, jointly and severally.  Pager then moved, in effect, to vacate so much of the order dated November 8, 2021, as awarded the defendants attorneys' fees and costs payable by Pager.  In an order dated June 2, 2022, the court, in effect, denied Pager's motion.

The plaintiff appeals from the orders dated August 16, 2021, November 8, 2021, and June 2, 2022, and Pager appeals from the orders dated November 8, 2021, and June 2, 2022.

“ ‘Stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, will not lightly be set aside, and are to be enforced with rigor and without a searching examination into their substance as long as they are clear, final and the product of mutual accord’ ” (Riesenburger Props., LLLP v. Pi Assoc., LLC, 225 A.D.3d 803, 805, 208 N.Y.S.3d 632, quoting Herz v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 172 A.D.3d 1336, 1337, 99 N.Y.S.3d 664).  “When an action to recover damages has been settled, any settling defendant ․ shall pay all sums due to any settling plaintiff within [21] days of tender, by the settling plaintiff to the settling defendant, of a duly executed release and a stipulation discontinuing [the] action executed on behalf of the settling plaintiff” (CPLR 5003–a[a];  see Levine v. American Multi–Cinema, Inc., 208 A.D.3d 1230, 1232–1233, 174 N.Y.S.3d 460).  Here, where the Supreme Court had granted a prior motion to compel enforcement of the parties' settlement agreement, from which no appeal was taken, the court properly granted that branch of the sanctions motion which was to enforce the settlement agreement and compel the plaintiff to execute the release and stipulation of discontinuance and to dismiss the complaint (see Anghel v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 164 A.D.3d 1294, 1296, 82 N.Y.S.3d 541).

“A court, in its discretion, may award a party costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses incurred and reasonable attorney's fees where an opposing party has engaged in frivolous conduct” (Madigan v. Berkeley Capital, LLC, 205 A.D.3d 900, 907, 169 N.Y.S.3d 326;  see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1[a] ).  “Conduct is frivolous ․ if it is ‘completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law’ or ‘undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another’ ” (Madigan v. Berkeley Captial, LLC, 205 A.D.3d at 907, 169 N.Y.S.3d 326, quoting 22 NYCRR 130–1.1[c][1], [2] ).  Here, the plaintiff and Pager engaged in frivolous conduct in refusing to sign the general release and stipulation of discontinuance and returning the settlement check and unsigned general release and stipulation to the defendants without explanation, months after the October 22, 2020 order directing enforcement of the parties' settlement agreement (see CPLR 5003–a[a];  22 NYCRR 130–1.1[c][1] ).  Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the defendants' moving papers on the sanctions motion placed Pager's conduct at issue, and a hearing on the issue of whether to impose sanctions was not required, as the appellants were afforded the opportunity to be heard and to oppose the motion (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1[d];  Matter of South Beach Area–Stage 2, 236 A.D.3d 800, 801–802, 229 N.Y.S.3d 550).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the sanctions motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The appellants' remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

In addition, since the appellants have raised arguments on this appeal that appear to be “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” (22 NYCRR 130–1.1[c][1] ), these appeals may be frivolous (see Caplan v. Tofel, 65 A.D.3d 1180, 1181–1182, 886 N.Y.S.2d 182).  Accordingly, we direct the submission of affirmations or affidavits on the issue of whether, and in what amount, costs or sanctions in connection with this appeal should or should not be imposed on the appellants.

On the Court's own motion, by order to show cause dated April 18, 2025, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal from the order dated November 8, 2021, on the ground that the appellant is not aggrieved (see CPLR 5511).  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 30, 2025, the motion to dismiss the appeal from the order dated November 8, 2021, on the ground that the appellant Shahin Guliyev is not aggrieved was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal from the order dated November 8, 2021, on the ground that the appellant Shahin Guliyev is not aggrieved is denied.

IANNACCI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.