Opinion
July 15, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
The facts of the underlying action were set forth in our prior decision and order, which affirmed the order appealed from (see, Strout Realty v Mechta, 172 A.D.2d 602, supra). We concluded therein that "the defendant's conduct in pursuing [a second] appeal [with regard to this litigation] that so obviously lacks merit in either fact or law must be characterized as frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c)" (Strout Realty v Mechta, supra, at 602-603). On April 24, 1991, the defendant pro se and counsel for the plaintiff appeared before this court and were heard on the record with respect to the question of sanctions and costs. Although given the opportunity to do so, the defendant failed to demonstrate that his claims had any legitimate basis whatever, in light of the facts. During the proceeding, counsel for the plaintiff stated and documented that the sum necessary to reimburse his firm for its legal services and disbursements on this appeal was $2,836. Accordingly, we direct that the defendant compensate the plaintiff's counsel for those costs in the amount of $2,836 and that he pay an additional $5,000 sanction to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (see, Matter of Minister, Elders Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, 76 N.Y.2d 411, 413). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.