Navin v. Mosquera
| Decision Date | 22 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | 99767. |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 05088,817 N.Y.S.2d 705,30 A.D.3d 883 |
| Parties | EDWIN NAVIN et al., Appellants, v. RUEBEN M. MOSQUERA et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The parties own adjoining land in the Town of Saranac, Clinton County. Defendants replaced a bridge leading to their landlocked parcel on the far side of a brook, with the near side connected to plaintiffs' property over which defendants have a right-of-way. Plaintiffs commenced an RPAPL 871 action alleging that the new bridge encroached on their property. They sought an injunction preventing defendants from using or maintaining the bridge, and removal of any encroachments. Defendants counterclaimed under RPAPL article 15 for declaratory and injunctive relief establishing the validity of two rights-of-way over plaintiffs' property, and for damages for trespass. Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, awarded defendants nominal damages for plaintiffs' trespass and issued a declaration that defendants enjoyed two rights-of-way. We affirmed that decision (26 AD3d 556 [2006]). Supreme Court originally reserved decision on defendants' motion for sanctions. After holding a hearing on the issue of whether plaintiffs' conduct was frivolous and thus merited sanctions, the court granted the motion and entered a judgment of $8,993 in defendants' favor, representing defendants' actual expenses for litigation costs and counsel fees in this matter. Plaintiffs appeal.
Plaintiffs' conduct in continuing their RPAPL 871 claim was frivolous. Courts may impose reasonable costs or sanctions for frivolous conduct, namely conduct which "is 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]; see Citibank [S.D.] v Alotta, 277 AD2d 547, 548-549 [2000]). In considering whether specific conduct is frivolous, courts are required to examine "whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent [or] should have been apparent" (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Awards of sanctions should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion (see First Deposit Natl. Bank v Van Allen, 277 AD2d 858, 860 [2000]).
Although plaintiffs' complaint was not frivolous when it was filed, their continued pursuit of their claim became frivolous as the action progressed. New survey maps completed after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Czajka v. Dellehunt
...that the alterations had occurred. An application for sanctions is addressed to the court's discretion (see Navin v. Mosquera, 30 A.D.3d 883, 883–884, 817 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2006] ; Matter of Rosenhain, 222 A.D.2d 745, 746, 634 N.Y.S.2d 270 [1995], lv. dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 1053, 644 N.Y.S.2d 142,......
-
Kampfer v. DaCorsi
...the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent [or] should have been apparent’ ” (Navin v. Mosquera, 30 A.D.3d 883, 883, 817 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2006], quoting 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 [c] ).When plaintiff commenced this action, he was well aware that his assertion that he......
-
Pilatich v. Town of New Balt.
...an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Czajka v. Dellehunt, 125 A.D.3d 1177, 1184, 5 N.Y.S.3d 318 [2015] ; Navin v. Mosquera, 30 A.D.3d 883, 883–884, 817 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2006] ). Moreover, whereas an award pursuant to the regulations is permissive (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 [a] [stating that a "cou......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Moon, 526611
...1251, 50 N.Y.S.3d 572 [2017], lv dismissed and denied 29 N.Y.3d 1046, 56 N.Y.S.3d 507, 78 N.E.3d 1192 [2017] ; Navin v. Mosquera, 30 A.D.3d 883, 883–884, 817 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2006] ; Ireland v. Wilenzik, 296 A.D.2d 771, 774, 745 N.Y.S.2d 316 [2002] ).The dispute stems from the parties' inabili......