Zappin v. Comfort
Citation | 146 A.D.3d 575,49 N.Y.S.3d 6 |
Parties | Anthony ZAPPIN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Claire COMFORT, Defendant–Respondent. |
Decision Date | 17 January 2017 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
146 A.D.3d 575
49 N.Y.S.3d 6
Anthony ZAPPIN, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Claire COMFORT, Defendant–Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan. 17, 2017.
Anthony Zappin, appellant pro se.
The Wallack Firm, P.C., New York (Robert M. Wallack of counsel), for respondent.
Cohen Rabin Stine Schumann LLP, New York (Harriet Newman Cohen of counsel), attorney for the child.
ACOSTA, J.P., MAZZARELLI, MANZANET–DANIELS, WEBBER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered September 21, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, imposed sanctions against plaintiff husband for violating the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 130–1.1, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Supreme Court's detailed decision is amply supported by the record, and the husband does not advance any meritorious argument that his conduct was not frivolous or in bad faith, or not designed to "harass or maliciously injure another," such that his conduct should not be sanctioned (22 NYCRR 130–1.1 [c] ). The record establishes that the husband engaged in unprofessional, outrageous and malicious conduct on multiple occasions, most recently by filing the bad faith disciplinary complaint against the attorney for the child's (AFC) medical expert with the Department
of Health's Office of Professional Medical Conduct. Under the circumstances, particularly where the husband has exhibited a pattern of bad faith conduct throughout the proceedings despite repeated warnings not to do so, the sanctions imposed by Supreme Court were entirely proper (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.3 ; 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 ).
We have considered each of the husband's procedural arguments, including that he was entitled to a hearing because he did not have fair notice that sanctions were being considered against him, and find them unavailing. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zappin v. Ramey
...... disciplinary proceedings lodged against Zappin. . . A. Prior Relevant Legal Actions . . . 1. Divorce and Custody Proceedings . . . Zappin. married Claire K. Comfort in 2013. Comfort and Zappin quickly. developed marital problems and by November of that year. entered into a consent order in the District of Columbia by. which Zappin agreed to have no contact with Comfort and only. supervised visitation with the couple's newborn son. ......
-
Zappin v. Ramey
...... disciplinary proceedings lodged against Zappin. . . A. Prior Relevant Legal Actions . . . 1. Divorce and Custody Proceedings . . . Zappin. married Claire K. Comfort in 2013. Comfort and Zappin quickly. developed marital problems and by November of that year. entered into a consent order in the District of Columbia by. which Zappin agreed to have no contact with Comfort and only. supervised visitation with the couple's newborn son. ......
-
Rosenbaum v. Myers
...947 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1st Dep't 2012) ; Benishai v. Benishai , 83 A.D.3d 420, 420, 920 N.Y.S.2d 84 (1st Dep't 2011). See Zappin v. Comfort , 146 A.D.3d 575, 575, 49 N.Y.S.3d 6 (1st Dep't 2017) ; Borstein v. Henneberry , 132 AD3d at 452, 17 N.Y.S.3d 414.Finally, since defendant herself drafted th......
-
Zappin v. Cooper
......The New York chapter of those proceedings began in February 2014, when Plaintiff initiated the divorce action Zappin v. Comfort in New York County Supreme Court (the "Divorce Action"). (Sanctions Decision 5). Defendant began presiding over that case after reassignment in July 2015 from a different New York judge. (FAC ¶ 12). Plaintiff alleges that from the first hearing before Defendant (or the "Trial ......