Opinion
No. 2366 Index No. 651036/10 No. 2023-00819
05-23-2024
J. Christopher Flowers, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 73rd Townhouse, LLC, et al, Defendants-Respondents, Judith Kingsford etc., et al., Defendants.
Law Office of Mark H. Goldey, New York (Mark H. Goldey of counsel), for appellant. Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP, New York (J. Ted Donovan of counsel), for respondents.
Law Office of Mark H. Goldey, New York (Mark H. Goldey of counsel), for appellant.
Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP, New York (J. Ted Donovan of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Webber, J.P., Gesmer, González, Scarpulla, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered February 7, 2023, which denied plaintiff's motion for monetary sanctions under CPLR 3126, granted his motion for monetary sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to the extent of awarding him $7,500, and denied his motion to hold defendants in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly concluded that plaintiff waived his right to seek discovery sanctions under CPLR 3126 by filing the note of issue and certifying that all discovery was complete without reserving any rights or objections (see Marte v City of New York, 102 A.D.3d 557, 558 [1st Dept 2013]).
The court did not abuse its discretion in partially granting plaintiff's motion for monetary sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. The court properly rejected plaintiff's contention that defendant's overall litigation of the case amounted to frivolous and sanctionable conduct, as defendants' motions and arguments were neither completely devoid of merit nor evidently advanced in bad faith (see Gordon Group Invs., LLC v Kugler, 127 A.D.3d 592, 594-595 [1st Dept 2015]). The court, which presided over discovery in this case for years, also did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose monetary sanctions for defendants' delays where plaintiff chose to proceed with the case without further attempts to compel disclosure or impose sanctions until after the note of issue was filed. The court providently exercised its discretion in determining that monetary sanctions in the amount of $7,500 were warranted for defendants' failure to notify the court and plaintiff of the death of one of the defendants, which further delayed the litigation (see McCormack v County of Westchester, 255 A.D.2d 296, 297 [2d Dept 1998]).
The court properly declined to hold defendants in civil contempt under Judiciary Law § 753, as plaintiff failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that defendants disobeyed a clear and unequivocal order of the court (see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 29 [2015]; Matter of B&M Kingstone, LLC v Mega Intl. Commercial Bank Ltd., 214 A.D.3d 473, 473-474 [1st Dept 2023]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.