MUSUMECI v. MUSUMECI

ORDERED that the appeals by the defendant from the orders dated March 25, 1998, and August 13, 1998, respectively, are dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the appeal of the nonparty Philip Sands, the order dated March 25, 1998, is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the respective applications for sanctions and substituting a provision therefor denying those applications; and it is further,

ORDERED that the nonparty Philip Sands is awarded one bill of costs payable by the respondent.

The appeals of the defendant from the intermediate orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248 ). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the accompanying appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]; Musumeci v. Musumeci, 267 A.D.2d 365 [App. Div. Docket No. 99-00414 decided herewith]).

A court may impose a sanction against an attorney for frivolous conduct which includes conduct "undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another" (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [c][2]). Here, however, the motion brought by the attorney on behalf of the husband was not so frivolous, and no sanction will be imposed.

SANTUCCI, J.P., JOY, FRIEDMANN, and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.