The contents of the aforesaid orders and the facts of the underlying action were set forth in our prior decision and order dated May 14, 1990 (see, Strout Realty v Mechta, 161 A.D.2d 630, supra). which dismissed the appeal from so much of one of the orders as granted the branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to direct the defendant to appear for a further examination before trial and otherwise affirmed both orders insofar as appealed from. We concluded therein that "the defendant's conduct in pursuing yet another appeal that so obviously lacks merit in either fact or law must be characterized as frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c)" (at 631). During the proceeding held on June 20, 1990, counsel for the plaintiff stated his firm made an expenditure in countering the instant frivolous appeal of $1,949. The defendant did not contest this figure. Accordingly, we direct that the defendant compensate the plaintiff's attorneys for their costs in the amount of $1,949, and that he pay an additional $2,000 in sanctions, to deter such frivolous appeals in the future (see, Matter of Minister, Elders Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, 76 N.Y.2d 411). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.