Patterson v. Balaquiot
| Decision Date | 01 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | A-C |
| Citation | 590 N.Y.S.2d 469,188 A.D.2d 275 |
| Parties | Andrea PATTERSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Juanito BALAQUIOT, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Agency Rent-ar, Inc., Defendant, Niel F. Phillips, Defendant-Respondent, and Carl A. Lashley, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and CARRO, WALLACH, KUPFERMAN and KASSAL, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered July 17, 1991, which, insofar as appealed from, imposed a sanction of $250 against plaintiffs' attorney to be paid to defendants-respondents' attorneys, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing that the sanctions be paid to the Clients' Security Fund, and otherwise affirmed, with costs.
In response to a motion for preclusion made by a defendant who is not a respondent on the appeal, plaintiffs cross-moved for sanctions against defendants-respondents on the ground that their refusal to acknowledge the mail service plaintiffs had purportedly made upon them pursuant to CPLR 312-a constituted frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Plaintiffs' contention that defendants-respondents were under an obligation to acknowledge such service is without merit (see, Matter of Shenko Elec. v. Hartnett, 161 A.D.2d 1212, 558 N.Y.S.2d 859), and, like the IAS court, we would go further, and hold that the request for sanctions was itself frivolous (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]. Such a request would have been warranted only if the acknowledgment plaintiffs seek "was clearly and unequivocally mandated by existing law" (Edwards v. Edwards, 165 A.D.2d 362, 363, 567 N.Y.S.2d 645), which is hardly the case.
We modify to direct payment of the sanctions to the Clients' Security Fund rather than to defendants' attorneys (see also, 22 NYCRR 130-1.3).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glendora v. Pinkerton Sec. and Detective Services
... ... Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-73, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930 (2d Cir.1977).1 ... Glendora does not allege any facts concerning Nevins in her complaint, other than to name him in ... Indeed, Nevins had no legal duty to acknowledge service. Patterson v. Balaquiot, 188 A.D.2d 275, 275, 590 N.Y.S.2d 469, 470 (1st Dep't 1992) ... This action was removed to federal court on July 17, 1998. On July ... ...
-
In Re: Nassau County Consolidated
...within 30 days, the plaintiff's only remedy is recovery for the cost of in-hand service under CPLR § 312-a(f). (See Patterson v. Balaquiot, 188 A.D.2d 275 [1 Dep't 1992]; Horseman Antiques, Inc. v. Huch, 50 A.D.3d 963 [2d Dep't 2008]). Ms. Rothberg did accept service and complied with CPLR ......
-
Shelley v. Shelley
...in such circumstances is itself a form of frivolous conduct warranting the imposition of sanctions (see, Patterson v. Balaquiot, 188 A.D.2d 275, 590 N.Y.S.2d 469 [1st Dept.1992]; see also, Southern Blvd. Sound, Inc. v. Felix Storch, Inc., 167 Misc.2d 731, 732, 643 N.Y.S.2d 882 [App.Term 1st......
-
Kostelanetz & Fink, L.L.P. v. Hui Qun Zhao
...Defendant, of course, is not required to sign and return the acknowledgment-of-receipt form to plaintiff. Patterson v. Balaquiot, 188 A.D.2d 275, 590 N.Y.S.2d 469 (1st Dept.1992); Matter of Shenko Electric, Inc. v. Hartnett, 161 A.D.2d 1212, 1213, 558 N.Y.S.2d 859 (4th Dept.1990). Should de......