Sadia Home, Inc., Appellant, v. Latoya Polite and Dorothea Polite, Respondents, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Undertenants. Lee M. Nigen, Nonparty-Respondent. (2025)

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Occupants moved to dismiss the petition in this holdover proceeding on the basis of res judicata due to the dismissal of the petition in a prior holdover proceeding. Petitioner opposed the motion on the ground that the dismissal had been without prejudice. After a brief adjournment, occupants withdrew their motion. Petitioner subsequently moved, insofar as relevant here, for sanctions against occupants and their attorney, arguing that the motion to dismiss was frivolous and dilatory because the prior petition had been dismissed without prejudice. As limited by its brief, petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court (Logan J. Schiff, J.) dated June 10, 2024 as denied the branch of petitioner's motion seeking sanctions.

Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1 (a) states that a court "in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct." Conduct is defined as frivolous if it is "completely without merit in law or fact and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law" (Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1 [c] [1]) or "undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation" (Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1 [c] [2]). " 'The decision to award costs or sanctions, and the amount or nature of those costs or sanctions, is generally entrusted to the trial court's sound discretion' " (Darius Masonry, Inc. v NGL Contr., Ltd., 75 Misc 3d 131[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50441[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2022], quoting Mosab Constr. Corp. v Prospect Park Yeshiva, Inc., 124 AD3d 732, 734 [2015]). Although occupants' motion was without merit, it was withdrawn after a brief adjournment and counsel was cautioned from further engaging in such behavior. Under these circumstances, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the branch of petitioner's motion seeking sanctions.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

MUNDY, J.P., OTTLEY and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 6, 2025