Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

• Decision Date: 21 April 2016
• Docket Number: 893N, 314079/10.
• Citation: 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03083,138 A.D.3d 575,30 N.Y.S.3d 65
• Parties: Lauren Appel GOTTLIEB, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. MICHAEL GOTTLIEB, Defendant. Mallow, Konstam, et al., Nonparty Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

138 A.D.3d 575
30 N.Y.S.3d 65
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03083

Lauren Appel GOTTLIEB, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL GOTTLIEB, Defendant.

Mallow, Konstam, et al., Nonparty Appellants.

893N, 314079/10.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

April 21, 2016.

30 N.Y.S.3d 66

Paul T. Gentile, P.C., New York (Paul T. Gentile of counsel), for appellants.

Bender & Rosenthal LLP, New York (Karen B. Rosenthal of counsel), for respondent.

SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ.

138 A.D.3d 575

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen F. Gesmer, J.), entered August 26, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff wife's motions

138 A.D.3d 576

for sanctions to the extent of directing nonparties Mallow, Konstam, Mazur, Bocketti & Nisonoff, P.C., Abe Konstam, Esq., and Madeleine Nisonoff, Esq. (collectively the Attorneys), to pay the wife $317,480.67, representing the attorneys' fees incurred by her as a result of the Attorneys' misconduct, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the award of $25,412.50 for pursuing a special proceeding after October 11, 2011 and in lieu thereof award $10,000 in sanctions; to vacate the awards of $78,812 for continuing the visitation trial after December 17, 2012, and $75,935 for preparation of the posttrial memorandum; to vacate the award of $28,135.35 for preparation of the addendum to the posttrial memorandum, and in lieu thereof impose $10,000 in sanctions; and to vacate the awards of $28,675 for bringing motion sequence four, $18,510.82, for bringing motion sequence five, and $62,000 for the sanctions hearing, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The Attorneys' conduct in pursuing the special proceeding after October 11, 2011 and until November 7, 2011, even though they had notice that defendant husband's claim had no merit, was “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(c) (see

30 N.Y.S.3d 67

...