Opinion
October 23, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.)
22 NYCRR 130-1.2 provides that the court may impose sanctions "only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate", and that an "award of costs or the imposition of sanctions or both shall be entered as a judgment of the court". The motion court's failure to comply with these requirements renders the order of sanctions deficient ( see, e.g., Spinnell v. Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods., 239 A.D.2d 175). In all other respects, we find the challenged dispositions to be appropriate exercises of the court's discretion in supervising the dissolution ( see, Goergen v Nebrich, 4 A.D.2d 526, 527). We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.