From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dubai Bank Limited v. Ayyub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 19, 1992
187 A.D.2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 19, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.).


The award of costs and sanctions must be vacated because not made "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." ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.2. ) We should note, however, that there is no merit to defendant's argument that the court did not give him a reasonable opportunity to be heard before imposing sanctions, as required by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (d). "The form of the hearing shall depend upon the nature of the conduct and the circumstances of the case." (Ibid.) Defendant admits that both sides were present at oral argument, and does not claim that he was prevented from arguing in opposition to the cross motion. Under the circumstances of this case, that was sufficient (Bruckner v Jaitor Apts. Co., 147 Misc.2d 796). Nor is there merit to defendant's argument that his default should be vacated, his conclusory statements in support thereof showing neither a reasonable excuse nor a meritorious defense.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.


Summaries of

Dubai Bank Limited v. Ayyub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 19, 1992
187 A.D.2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Dubai Bank Limited v. Ayyub

Case Details

Full title:DUBAI BANK LIMITED, Respondent, v. SAYED ABBAS AYYUB et al., Defendants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 19, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
589 N.Y.S.2d 486

Citing Cases

Verdi v. Dinowitz

Plaintiff and his counsel made their fifth and sixth applications for sanctions in opposition to defendant's…

Schindler v. Lester Schwab Katz Dwyer, LLP

Therefore, in asserting a claim (3rd cause of action) against the defendants for violations of Judiciary Law…