Opinion
2000-07594
Argued November 15, 2001.
December 17, 2001.
In an action to enjoin the defendant from releasing certain confidential information, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated July 21, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to impose a sanction upon them pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and imposed a sanction of $750.
Richard A. Marcus, New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Daniel D. Dashman, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., respondent pro se.
Before: HOWARD MILLER, J.P., SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the record amply supports the Supreme Court's conclusion that the postjudgment motion to compel the deposition of the defendant constituted frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR Part 130-1(c)(1) in that it was "completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law" (22 NYCRR Part 130-1[c][1]; see, Mancini v. Mancini, 269 A.D.2d 366; Walton v. Markan, 262 A.D.2d 479). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction against the appellants (see, Antoine v. Gulmi, 250 A.D.2d 558; see generally, Intercontinental Credit Corp. Div. of Pan Am. Trade Dev. Corp. v. Roth, 78 N.Y.2d 306).
H. MILLER, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.