On June 16, 2017, Justice Hudson of the Suffolk County Commercial Division issued a decision in Tricarico v. Baer, 2017 NY Slip Op. 31343(U), sanctioning counsel for bringing multiple motions for the same relief, explaining:
Plaintiffs motion originally returnable September 15, 2016, seeks the same relief which was requested as part of Plaintiff’s motion originally returnable April 13th, 2016.
The Court must also note that the Plaintiff has sought a default against Ms. Baer in three separate motions which were made sequentially without giving the Court the opportunity to rule on the earliest application. There is no adequate explanation for why this was done. Needlessly making a motion for identical relief while a motion for the same relief is pending is repetitive, vexatious and frivolous. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for the Court to impose monetary sanctions is granted.
22NYCRR130.1- l(d) and attendant case law state that the person against whom the court is considering sanctions must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and that the form of the hearing shall depend upon the nature and conduct and circumstances of the case. Based on the forgoing, the Court will conduct a hearing at the conclusion of this case at which time Mr. Walsh will be allowed to produce an affirmation of legal services representing the time expended in responding to Mr. Mulvehill’s frivolous motion. Mr. Mulvehill will be given the opportunity to be heard.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).