This is yet another action arising out of the Parks v Greenberg matter ( 161 A.D.2d 467, mot to dismiss appeal granted 76 N.Y.2d 888, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 712; Parks v. Leahey Johnson, 180 A.D.2d 479, mod 81 N.Y.2d 161). In this instance, plaintiff-lawyer who represented Parks in the original action commenced an action for defamation against an attorney from the firm who represented defendant in the original action as well as defendant law firm in the second action. The alleged defamation is claimed to arise from statements made at oral argument before this Court on an appeal in the second action. As such, the complained of statement is absolutely privileged since it was uttered in response to a footnote which plaintiff himself set forth in a brief filed with this Court (see, Joseph v. Larry Dorman, P.C., 177 A.D.2d 618). Moreover, we do not deem the statement defamatory and, in any event, would be governed by the single instance rule which would require the pleading of special damages, here absent (Bowes v. Magna Concepts, 166 A.D.2d 347).
Finally, the imposition of the maximum sanction of $10,000 for frivolous conduct was appropriate in this circumstance since plaintiff was forewarned about the dubious nature of this action and further because the plaintiff has repeatedly engaged in vexatious litigation arising from the original Parks v Greenberg case. We note parenthetically that plaintiff is now enjoined from any further litigation emanating from that case.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.