Opinion
570737/03.
Decided August 4, 2004.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered March 19, 2003 (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.) granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directing a hearing on sanctions and from an order of the same court entered April 3, 2003, after a hearing (Karen S. Smith, J.) imposing costs against plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,694 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.
Orders entered March 19, 2003 (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.) and April 3, 2003 (Karen S. Smith, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P., HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
Summary dismissal of the complaint was proper in this action for a refund of a placement fee against an employment agency and its applicant. Under the fee agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to a refund where, as here, the applicant left her part-time child care position with plaintiff's family in September 2002, after the agency's three-month replacement/refund guarantee had expired (June 1, 2002). Moreover, it is clear that the applicant was entitled to terminate her employment, for any reason, at the time she did.
Since the agreement was drafted by plaintiff and admits of only one interpretation, this lawsuit was without any arguable merit and was "frivolous" within the meaning of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1(c). Accordingly, the court's determination that plaintiff should bear the reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the action's defense constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1[a]; Saleh v. Hochberg, 5 AD3d 234). Moreover, plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and the court's decision sufficiently set forth the conduct on which the award was based and the reason why it found this conduct to be frivolous (see Benefield v. New York City Housing Authority, 260 AD2d 167).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.