Minister of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Henry Modell & Co., 70 N.Y.2d 415 (1987)
r
r
Courts may impose sanctions for frivolous conduct, including motions completely without merit in law or fact, or undertaken primarily to delay litigation.
r
r
Summary
r
Following a protracted legal battle over a sublease, the New York Court of Appeals imposed a $2,500 sanction on Henry Modell & Co. for bringing a frivolous motion to recall and amend the remittitur of a prior decision. The court found the motion untimely, procedurally insupportable, and intended to delay enforcement of a seven-year-old judgment. This case clarifies the court’s power to sanction parties for abusing the legal system through repetitive and meritless litigation tactics, particularly when those tactics are used to delay an inevitable outcome.
r
r
Facts
r
Henry Modell & Co. (Modell) subleased commercial space at 198 Broadway in Manhattan. A dispute arose when the master tenant chose not to renew its master lease, impacting Modell’s sublease. The Appellate Division initially ruled against Modell, awarding possession to the petitioner, Minister of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in 1983. Subsequently, Modell initiated a series of legal actions, including a declaratory judgment action, multiple motions to vacate the dispossess judgment based on purported newly discovered evidence, and the motion that led to this sanction.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Appellate Division initially ruled in favor of the Minister. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order in 1983 (59 NY2d 170). Modell then engaged in numerous post-judgment legal maneuvers, including appeals and motions. After the trial court denied Modell’s second motion to vacate, and Modell’s attempts to reargue and appeal that denial failed, Modell filed the motion to recall and amend the remittitur, which was the basis for the sanction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the motion and imposed sanctions.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the respondent’s motion to recall and amend the remittitur was frivolous conduct warranting sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because the motion was completely without merit in law or fact, could not be supported by any reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and was evidently undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court found Modell’s motion to be frivolous under Rule 130-1.1 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts. The motion was untimely, having been made almost seven years after the deadline. It was procedurally insupportable because it sought to introduce a new legal theory and