From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McErlean v. Mendelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1999
259 A.D.2d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 8, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County.


On the Court's own motion and on the papers filed in opposition and relation thereto, it is

Ordered that within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, Norman M. Mendelson and Lee J. Mendelson are directed to each personally pay a sanction in the amount of $1,000 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection established pursuant to State Finance Law § 97-t; and it is further,

Ordered that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, shall enter judgment accordingly ( see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.2).

The defendant attorney Norman M. Mendelson, through his son Lee J. Mendelson, also an attorney, used the New York State court system to retain $50,000 that did not belong to him. For more than five years, Norman M. Mendelson, as the agent of a nonexistent corporation, retained the plaintiff's money without authority — and one of those years was gained by pursuing this frivolous appeal. In addition, Norman M. Mendelson harassed the plaintiff by forcing him to repeatedly litigate an issue which "is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law" ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; see, McErlean v. Mendelson, supra). Accordingly, the imposition of sanctions upon both Norman M. Mendelson and Lee J. Mendelson is appropriate.

O'Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McErlean v. Mendelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1999
259 A.D.2d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

McErlean v. Mendelson

Case Details

Full title:DANYA C. McERLEAN et al., Respondents, v. NORMAN M. MENDELSON, Appellant…

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

Date published: Mar 8, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 906

Citing Cases

Mayer v. Vilar

Conduct is frivolous under 22 NYCRR §130-1.1(c)(1) if it is "completely without merit in law and cannot be…