From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson v. Balaquiot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1992
188 A.D.2d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 1, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.).


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 Harnett, 161 A.D.2d 1212), 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), 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).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Patterson v. Balaquiot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1992
188 A.D.2d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Patterson v. Balaquiot

Case Details

Full title:ANDREA PATTERSON et al., Appellants, v. JUANITO BALAQUIOT et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
590 N.Y.S.2d 469

Citing Cases

Liles v. Abraham

Notably, the cases defendants cite to do not support their claim for sanctions under these circumstances. The…

Stegemann v. Rensselaer Cnty. Sheriff's Office

It also is well established that mailing of process pursuant to CPLR § 312-a does not effect personal…