Opinion
12711 Index No. 650538/18 Case No. 2019-03665
12-22-2020
Dr. Jonathan KORN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. SACCO & FILLAS LLP, Defendant–Appellant.
Aydiner PC, Mineola (Si Aydiner of counsel), for appellant. Solomon & Cramer LLP, New York (Andrew T. Solomon of counsel), for respondent.
Aydiner PC, Mineola (Si Aydiner of counsel), for appellant.
Solomon & Cramer LLP, New York (Andrew T. Solomon of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Oing, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2019, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his conversion claim and awarded him the principal amount of $53,300, plus interest, costs and fees, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 8, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff prima facie established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his claim for conversion, based upon an assignment agreement he entered into with defendant's client, giving him a possessory interest in a portion of any settlement proceeds obtained in a personal injury action. Despite defendant law firm's knowledge of the agreement, it distributed all settlement proceeds and refused to pay plaintiff (see Swift Funding, LLC v. Isacc, 144 A.D.3d 471, 472, 40 N.Y.S.3d 268 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Bankers Trust Co. v. Cerrato, Sweeney, Cohn, Stahl & Vaccaro, 187 A.D.2d 384, 385, 590 N.Y.S.2d 201 [1st Dept. 1992] ).
The court providently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions against defendant under 22 NYCRR 130–1.1, in the amount of $1,500 for plaintiff's attorney fees and costs, and $5,000 to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection, due to multiple acts of frivolous and dilatory litigation tactics (see Pickens v. Castro, 55 A.D.3d 443, 444, 867 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept. 2008] ). Most notably, defendant submitted three consecutive applications seeking to stay enforcement of the court's summary judgment order. After defendant's initial application was denied by this Court, it sought a stay from the motion court without sufficiently informing it of this Court's denial of relief. When the motion court also declined a stay, defendant again sought interim relief from this Court (see Gassab v. R.T.R.L.L.C., 69 A.D.3d 511, 513, 893 N.Y.S.2d 540 [1st Dept. 2010] ).