Mokay v. Mokay

Decision Date27 November 2013
Citation111 A.D.3d 1175,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07888,976 N.Y.S.2d 274
PartiesAndrew MOKAY et al., Respondents, v. Connie MOKAY, Defendant, and Frederick J. Neroni, Appellant. Tatiana Neroni, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

111 A.D.3d 1175
976 N.Y.S.2d 274
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07888

Andrew MOKAY et al., Respondents,
v.
Connie MOKAY, Defendant,
and
Frederick J. Neroni, Appellant.

Tatiana Neroni, Appellant.

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

Nov. 27, 2013.



Neroni Law Office, Delhi (Tatiana Neroni of counsel), appellant pro se, and for Frederick J. Neroni, appellant.

Harlem & Jervis, Oneonta (Eric V. Jervis of counsel), for respondents.

[976 N.Y.S.2d 275]


Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., STEIN, SPAIN and EGAN JR., JJ.


LAHTINEN, J.P.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Garry, J.), entered October 5, 2007 in Delaware County, which, among other things, denied defendant Frederick J. Neroni's motion to dismiss the complaint against him, (2) from two orders of said court (Becker, J.), entered September 26, 2011 in Delaware County, which, among other things, denied defendant Frederick J. Neroni's motions to, among other things, disqualify the assigned Acting Supreme Court Justice, (3) from two orders of said court (Becker, J.), entered January 6, 2012 in Delaware County, which, among other things, partially granted plaintiffs' motion for a protective order and sua sponte imposed sanctions on defendant Frederick J. Neroni and Tatiana Neroni, and (4) from an order of said court, entered July 10, 2012, which denied defendant Frederick J. Neroni's motion to, among other things, compel discovery.

The facts underlying this litigation are set forth in our decision in an earlier appeal (67 A.D.3d 1210, 889 N.Y.S.2d 291 [2009] ). Briefly stated, defendant Frederick J. Neroni (hereinafter defendant), a former attorney, assisted Andrew Mokay Sr., now deceased (hereinafter decedent), in a scheme aimed at circumventing an open court stipulation in a divorce action by creating an ownership right in decedent's companion, defendant Connie Mokay (hereinafter Mokay), to real property that, under the stipulation, was supposed to be preserved for decedent's children. The children, later joined by decedent's estate, commenced this action against defendant and Mokay. In October 2007, Supreme Court (Garry, J.), among other things, declared that Mokay held the property in a constructive trust for decedent's estate and directed Mokay to transfer the property to the estate. In a series of orders in 2008, which were before us and affirmed in the earlier appeal, Supreme Court (Fitzgerald, J.), among other things, granted plaintiffs summary judgment against defendant on their fraud and Judiciary Law § 487 causes of action. Since our prior decision, extensive motion practice has ensued resulting in, as relevant to this appeal, various decisions and orders by Supreme Court (Becker, J.), which, among other things, denied defendant's motion to disqualify said court, imposed sanctions on defendant and his counsel, Tatiana Neroni, and denied defendant's motion to compel discovery. Defendant appeals from these orders as well as from the October 2007 order, and his counsel appeals from the order imposing sanctions on her.

The appeal from the October 2007 order, which was filed in April 2012, is untimely. Defendant contends that he was never served with notice of entry of said order. In our 2009 decision...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Green Tree Servicing LLC v. Bormann
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 11, 2018
    ...1164, 1165, 51 N.Y.S.3d 647 [2017] ; Kim v. A. Johnson Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 148 A.D.3d at 1313, 49 N.Y.S.3d 766 ; Mokay v. Mokay, 111 A.D.3d 1175, 1177, 976 N.Y.S.2d 274 [2013] ). We discern no such abuse of discretion here. Following Supreme Court's issuance of a conditional order of ......
  • Santaliz v. OR FM Assocs.
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • May 2, 2022
    ...In a sanctions motion, the Court may permissibly consider Respondent's counsel's conduct in previous instances, Mokay v. Mokay , 111 A.D.3d 1175, 1178, 976 N.Y.S.2d 274 (3rd Dept. 2013), including in previous litigation. Nachbaur v. Am. Transit Ins. Co. , 300 A.D.2d 74, 75, 752 N.Y.S.2d 605......
  • Czajka v. Dellehunt
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 19, 2015
    ...in any manner or degree by UCS's status as an intervenor, and no suggestion of unfairness or bias (compare Mokay v. Mokay, 111 A.D.3d 1175, 1178, 976 N.Y.S.2d 274 [2013] ; Douglas v. Douglas, 281 A.D.2d 709, 710–711, 722 N.Y.S.2d 87 [2001] ).Next, petitioner argues that Supreme Court erred ......
  • Santaliz v. OR FM Assocs.
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • May 2, 2022
    ...[20] In a sanctions motion, the Court may permissibly consider Respondent's counsel's conduct in previous instances, Mokay v. Mokay, 111 A.D.3d 1175, 1178 (3rd Dept. 2013), including in previous litigation. Nachbaur v. Am. Transit Ins. Co., 300 A.D.2d 74, 75 (1st Dept. 2002), appeal denied,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT