Opinion
December 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
At issue on this appeal is the propriety of an award of costs and sanctions which were imposed against the plaintiffs for bringing the instant action which was primarily for specific performance of a purported contract for the sale of real property and for filing a notice of pendency against the subject real property.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the writing, which the plaintiffs contended constituted a complete, enforceable agreement, was devoid of the "essential terms of any purchase/sale agreement" and that it therefore was not a valid contract subject to specific performance. The record further supports the court's finding that the plaintiff Ralph Somma, an attorney at law who brought this lawsuit on behalf of himself and as counsel to the plaintiff Messena Somma, had acknowledged that these "essential terms" must be included in such a contract.
These facts, and other matter contained in the record support the ultimate conclusion that the commencement of this action was, among other things, without merit and that this constituted "frivolous conduct" within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.
Further, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' assertions to the contrary, they were not denied an opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of costs and sanctions ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]; see, Matter of Minister, Elders Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v. 198 Broadway, 76 N.Y.2d 411, 413).
The costs awarded to the defendant and the sanctions imposed against the plaintiffs were appropriate in all respects ( see, Matter of Williams v. Williams, 215 A.D.2d 980, 981-982).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.