Opinion
Motion No: 2010-09336 Index No. 04-1962M130217
12-29-2011
Uri Tornheim, appellant, v. Blue & White Food Products Corp., respondent.
, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Appeal by Uri Tornheim from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated August 11, 2010, which was determined by a decision and order of this Court dated October 18, 2011. In the decision and order dated October 18, 2011, counsel for the respective parties were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and costs, if any, against the plaintiff and/or his counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) as this Court may deem appropriate.
Now, upon the Court's own motion and upon the papers filed in response to the decision and order dated October 18, 2011, it is
ORDERED that within 20 days after service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon him, Bijal M. Jani, counsel for the plaintiff, is directed to pay a sanction in the sum of $500 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]; 130-1.3); and it is further,
ORDERED that Uri Tornheim is directed to pay a sanction in the sum of $500 and shall deposit the sum of $500 with the Clerk of this Court for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.3), within 20 days after service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon his counsel; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, shall enter judgment accordingly (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.2); and it is further,
ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, shall serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon counsel for the parties by regular mail.
In affirming the order on appeal we noted that "[u]pon his motion to vacate the judgment, the plaintiff failed to present either newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at trial, would have produced a different result (see CPLR 5015[a][2]), or any evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of the defendant (see CPLR 5015[a][3])." After considering the papers submitted by the parties, we conclude that the conduct of the plaintiff and his attorney in pursuing the instant appeal appears to be completely without merit in law or fact and unsupported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of litigation and to harass or maliciously injure another (see Rules of Chief Administrator of Courts [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1[c]; Tornheim v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 73 AD3d 749; Weinstock v Weinstock, 253 AD2d 873, 874, cert denied 526 US 1088; Palmieri v Thomas, 29 AD3d 658, 659). Accordingly, we determine that sanctions in the amounts set forth above are warranted.
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court