On March 25, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in United States Life Ins. Co. in the City of N.Y. v. Horowitz, 2021 NY Slip Op. 01877, holding that a release did not bar a Judiciary Law Section 487 claim, explaining: Judiciary Law § 487(1) provides that an attorney who is guilty of any... Read more »
Blogs
Posts Categorized: Sanctions
Complaint Struck as Discovery Sanction
On November 25, 2020, the Second Department issued a decision in Allstar Electronics, Inc. v. R. Scott DeLuca, 2020 NY Slip Op. 07018, affirming a decision striking a complaint as a discovery sanction, explaining: The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 against a party who refuses to comply... Read more »
Bad Motive, Without More, Insufficient Basis for an Abuse of Process Claim
On November 4, 2020, Justice Hudson of the Suffolk County Commercial Division issued a decision in Rizvi v. North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op. 51281(U), holding that bad motive, without more, is an insufficient basis for an abuse of process claim, explaining: The Court now turns its attention to the Plaintiff’s Third... Read more »
Answer Struck Because of Defendant’s Failure Appear at Court Conferences or Respond to Discovery Demands
On September 11, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Disoni LLC v. Montas, 2020 NY Slip Op. 33028(U), striking a defendant’s answer for failure to appear at court conferences or respond to discovery demands, explaining: Rule 12 of the Rules of the Commercial Division provides the failure... Read more »
Mariah Carey Entitled to Sanctions and Adverse Inference After Defendant Destroyed Relevant Evidence
On September 11, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision addressing when a party is entitled to sanctions and an adverse inference at trial for the destruction of relevant evidence. In Carey v. Shakhnazarian, 2020 NY Slip Op 51040 (U), Justice Borrok confirmed longstanding New York precedent that a... Read more »
Bringing an Action Maliciously An Insufficient Basis for an Abuse of Process Claim
On August 26, 2020, the Second Department issued a decision in Seidler v. Knopf, 2020 NY Slip Op. 04800, holding that an abuse of process claim could not be premised on allegedly suing someone maliciously, explaining: We disagree, however, with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for... Read more »
Spoliation Sanctions Not Justified When Party Preserved Documents When it Became Aware That Litigation Was Probable
On May 21, 2020, the First Department issued a decision in China Dev. Indus. Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op. 02987, holding that spoliation sanctions were not appropriate when a party preserved evidence as soon as it became aware that litigation was probable, explaining: Spoliation sanctions are available regardless of... Read more »
Abuse of Process Claim Cannot be Based on Initiation of a Lawsuit
On January 31, 2020, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in O’Keeffe’s Inc. v. 400 Times Sq. Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op. 30208(U), holding that an abuse of process claim could not be based on filing a lawsuit, explaining: Plaintiff seeks dismissal of Defendants’ counterclaim for abuse of... Read more »
Party Sanctioned for Falsifying Document
On January 17, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Sprecase v. Tenreiro, 2020 NY Slip Op. 30155(U), sanctioning a party for falsifying a document, explaining: Mr. Stipa moves for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1. A court in a civil action is authorized to award the... Read more »
Discovery Sanction Reversed as Excessive
On January 14, 2020, the First Department issued a decision in Beach v. Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2020 NY Slip Op. 00230, reversing a discovery sanction as excessive, explaining: [A]ppellants contend that they committed no discovery violations, but even if they did, the court’s preclusion orders constituted an excessive sanction that deprived them of a... Read more »