New York Law Review

People v. Tychanski, 78 N.Y.2d 909 (1991): Sanctions for Frivolous Motions to Delay Enforcement

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

78 N.Y.2d 909 (1991)

Courts may impose sanctions on parties and their attorneys for bringing frivolous motions primarily intended to delay legal proceedings.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s motion for reargument and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions. The court found the defendant’s motion to be frivolous and intended to delay enforcement proceedings in Israel. The defendant’s initial motion, invoking a special extension for attorney disability, lacked basis. The reargument motion, claiming the court misapprehended the initial motion, was equally meritless. The court concluded that these motions were primarily aimed at delaying the enforcement of a judgment in Israel, warranting sanctions against both the defendant and his attorney.

Facts

The defendant previously made a motion for leave to appeal, which the Court of Appeals dismissed as untimely on June 13, 1991. Subsequently, the defendant moved for reargument, claiming the court misunderstood the nature of the relief sought. The plaintiff then cross-moved for sanctions, arguing the reargument motion was frivolous and solely intended to delay enforcement proceedings against the defendant in Israel. The plaintiff also sought an order certifying the defendant had exhausted all New York appellate remedies.

Procedural History

The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the defendant’s motion for leave to appeal as untimely. The defendant then filed a motion for reargument. The plaintiff cross-moved for sanctions. The Court of Appeals then considered both the motion for reargument and the cross-motion for sanctions.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s motion for reargument was frivolous and intended to delay enforcement proceedings, thus warranting sanctions.

Holding

1. Yes, because the motion lacked merit and was primarily intended to delay enforcement of a judgment in Israel; thus, sanctions were warranted.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found the defendant’s motion for reargument to be wholly without basis and frivolous. The court determined that the motion was

More ARTICLES