AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges

CRISTINA COSTANTINI, Respondent v. MAURO COSTANTINI, Appellant.

The court's denial of sanctions and its finding that neither plaintiff nor her lawyer had engaged in frivolous conduct constituted a proper exercise of discretion ( see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], [c]). The grant of such relief to plaintiff was not an improvident exercise of discretion, as defendant had previously brought an order to show cause for sanctions and attorney's fees, which the court had refused to sign ( see Benefield v New York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 167). The court afforded defendant a reasonable opportunity to be heard ( see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]). The transcript of the hearing, which was incorporated by reference into the court's written decision, set forth the conduct on which the award was based and the reasons why the court found the conduct frivolous ( see 22 NYCRR 130-1.2). However, the court did not explain why $10,000 was an appropriate award for attorney's fees. Plaintiffs counsel's rate was $375 per hour; he spent three hours preparing motion papers and the hearing lasted two hours. We reduce the award accordingly.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

COSTANTINI v. COSTANTINI
(Oct 18, 2007)