The only well-pleaded allegation in the complaint is that defendant law firm and attorney-notary, in prior litigation (Parks v. Greenberg, 161 A.D.2d 467, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 712, mot to dismiss appeal granted 76 N.Y.2d 888), knowingly submitted affidavits notarized by a notary public whose commission had expired. Supreme Court correctly concluded that, assuming this to be true, defendants nevertheless could not be held liable to plaintiff since the validity of those documents was unassailable (see, Executive Law § 142-a). The statute is unambiguous when read in context. The plain meaning does not lead to an absurd, futile or unreasonable result and does not conflict with the policy of the legislation or frustrate the statutory purpose (Doctors Council v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 71 N.Y.2d 669, 675). In any event, we do not find that the legislative history of Executive Law § 142-a supports the construction advanced by plaintiff.
While the imposition of sanctions is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the IAS Court in the first instance (see, Odette Realty Co. v. DiBianco, 170 A.D.2d 299), we find the sanction imposed to be excessive and reduce it accordingly.
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.