From Calabro & Assocs. v. Katz, 26 Misc. 3d 137A, 907 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1st Dept. 2010):
The counterclaim for sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 should have been dismissed, since no independent cause of action for such sanctions exists (see Siegel, NY Practice § 414A [4th ed]; see also 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[d]). In any event, construed as a motion for rule 130-1.1 sanctions, such a motion should have been denied because defendant failed to establish that plaintiff engaged in frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]).
Share this article:
© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice