Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M117959

E/sl

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL

L. PRISCILLA HALL

SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

2009-08420, 2009-10304 Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v Thomas F. Liotti, defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant; Frederick K. Brewington, third-party defendant-respondent. (Index No. 19276/07)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeals by Thomas F. Liotti from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 24, 2009, and August 14, 2009, respectively, which were determined by decision and order of this Court dated February 22, 2011. In the decision and order, this Court directed counsel for the respective parties to show cause why an order should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and/or costs, if any, against Thomas F. Liotti pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, as this Court may deem appropriate.

Upon the Court's own motion and upon the papers filed in response to the order to show cause, it is

ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order on motion, Thomas F. Liotti is directed to pay a sanction in the sum of $500 to the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]; 130-1.3); and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, shall enter judgment accordingly (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.2); and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or his designee, shall serve a copy of this order upon counsel for the parties by regular mail; and it is further,

ORDERED that within 10 days after payment of the sanction, Thomas F. Liotti shall file proof of such payment with the Clerk of this Court.

The decision and order of this Court dated February 22, 2011, stated:

"Although the court has an inherent discretionary power to relieve a party from a judgment or order for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial justice (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68; Katz v Marra, 74 AD3d 888; see generally Selinger v Selinger, 250 AD2d 752, 753), the invocation of the court's inherent power to vacate its judgment or order was not warranted herein. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion to vacate the judgment, and properly denied his motion for leave to renew his motion to vacate the judgment. Moreover, the Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion, upon granting the third-party defendant's motion for sanctions, in imposing a sanction in the sum of $1,000 on the appellant (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]; Tornheim v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 73 AD3d 749)."

The brief submitted by Thomas F. Liotti in connection with the instant appeals repeated frivolous arguments that were properly sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we find that his conduct was completely without merit in law or fact and unsupported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and was undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of litigation and to harass or maliciously injure another (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]). Accordingly, we determine that a sanction in the amount set forth above is appropriate.

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court