Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of sanctions against attorneys who obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order. The court found that the application was not frivolous or primarily intended to harass or delay, that advance notice had been provided, and that the respondent was not harmed because a stipulation provided equivalent relief.
Holdings
- The denial of sanctions was a provident exercise of the lower court's discretion because respondent failed to show that the attorney's conduct was completely without merit, primarily intended to harass or maliciously injure, based on a falsely asserted material fact, or primarily undertaken to delay or prolong the litigation.
Questions Presented
- Whether the lower court properly denied respondent's motion for sanctions based on petitioners' attorney's procurement of an ex parte temporary restraining order.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (2)
- Parkchester S. Condominium Inc. v. Hernandez, 71 A.D.3d 503, 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010)(followed)
- Sakow v. Columbia Bagel, Inc., 32 A.D.3d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…