Opinion
February 20, 1997
APPEAL from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene Hahn, J.), dated October 24, 1995, which, in a holdover summary proceeding, awarded tenant attorney's fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a).
Edwin I. Gorski, New York City, for appellant.
Roger J. Bernstein, New York City, for respondent.
Order dated October 24, 1995 reversed, without costs, and the matter is remanded to Civil Court for a hearing de novo on tenant's application for attorney's fees.
Landlord's holdover proceeding was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case of illegal subletting, a determination not challenged on this appeal. Tenant's demand for legal fees was set down for a hearing, after which the court made an award of fees and disbursements "relying inter alia upon * * * the court rules regarding frivolous litigation".
It is not disputed that the lease between the parties did not contain an attorney's fees provision. Thus, section 234 Real Prop. of the Real Property Law was not triggered. However, the court is authorized in its discretion to award to any party reasonable attorney's fees "resulting from frivolous conduct" ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]). In this case, the award under part 130 was procedurally improper since the court failed, as required, to specifically set forth the conduct on which the award was based and the reasons why the court found such conduct to be objectionable ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.2; Martino v Martino, 194 A.D.2d 592; Gossett v Firestar Affiliates, 224 A.D.2d 487). In remanding this matter for a new hearing, we express no opinion on the substantive issue of whether the imposition of sanctions or attorney's fees is warranted ( Simons v Feinstein, 196 A.D.2d 432, 433; Martino v Martino, supra).
PARNESS, J.P., McCOOE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.