From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tercjak v. Tercjak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2008
49 A.D.3d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Summary

In Tercjak v. Tercjak, 49 AD3d 773 854 NYS2d 454 (2d Dept 2008), the Second Department upheld a Family Court Judge who had sanctioned counsel for making frivolous sanctions motions against the Law Guardian and opposing counsel.

Summary of this case from Case v. Freed

Opinion

No. 2007-02887.

March 18, 2008.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother and her attorney, Peter C. Lomtevas, appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), dated March 16, 2007, which granted the father's cross motion to impose sanctions and costs upon Peter C. Lomtevas, granted that branch of the Law Guardian's separate motion which was to impose sanctions upon him, and directed Peter C. Lomtevas to pay the sum of $2,000 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.3, and to pay the sum of $3,500 to the father's counsel.

Peter C. Lomtevas, Ozone Park, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se, and for appellant.

Alomar Associates, P.C., Ridgewood, N.Y. (Karina E. Alomar of counsel), for respondent.

Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, N.Y., Law Guardian for the children.

Before: Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Carni, JJ.


Ordered that the appeal by the mother is dismissed, as she is not aggrieved by the order ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed on the appeal by Peter C. Lomtevas; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is payable by the appellant Peter C. Lomtevas to the respondents.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions and costs upon counsel for the mother, Peter C. Lomtevas, for making frivolous motions to impose sanctions and costs upon the Law Guardian and the father's counsel. The record supports the Family Court's determination that the motions were completely without merit in law or fact, and were made primarily to harass or maliciously injure another ( see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; Greene v Doral Conference Ctr. Assoc., 18 AD3d 429, 431; Kucker v Kaminsky Rich, 7 AD3d 491, 492; Tyree Bros. Envtl. Servs. v Ferguson Propeller, 247 AD2d 376, 377). In support of the motions, Lomtevas submitted, inter alia, affidavits from a doctor that are rife with unfounded, gratuitously offensive, and utterly unacceptable attacks upon counsel for the father, the Law Guardian, and the Family Court ( see Matter of Winston, 243 AD2d 638; Matter of Jemzura v Mugglin, 207 AD2d 645).


Summaries of

Tercjak v. Tercjak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2008
49 A.D.3d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

In Tercjak v. Tercjak, 49 AD3d 773 854 NYS2d 454 (2d Dept 2008), the Second Department upheld a Family Court Judge who had sanctioned counsel for making frivolous sanctions motions against the Law Guardian and opposing counsel.

Summary of this case from Case v. Freed
Case details for

Tercjak v. Tercjak

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANDRZEJ TERCJAK, Respondent, v. JADWIGA TERCJAK…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2608
854 N.Y.S.2d 454

Citing Cases

Case v. Freed

Hence the making of the motion for the imposition of sanctions against the Freeds is deemed by the Court to…

Weissman v. Weissman

The Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiff to pay sanctions based on her frivolous conduct in…