Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The appellant, attorney for the plaintiff, filed a notice of pendency against property owned solely by the defendant based upon the plaintiff's claim to equitable distribution. The filing of a notice of pendency against the defendant's property based upon a claim of equitable distribution is completely without merit, since title, possession, use, or enjoyment of the subject property will not necessarily be affected ( see Gross v Gross, 114 AD2d 1002, 1003; Sehgal v Sehgal, 220 AD2d 201; Fakiris v Fakiris, 111 AD2d 540, 543). After the action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the appellant unreasonably delayed in canceling the notice of pendency, generating un-necessary motion practice. Under the circumstances, the award of a sanction in the sum of $2,500 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 was a provident exercise of discretion.