Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M212990

E/sl

MARK C. DILLON, J.P.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN

ROBERT J. MILLER

HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2015-10291 In the Matter of Thomas Conway, appellant, v Joy Gartmond, respondent. (Docket No. F-13400-13/13A & B)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeal by Thomas Conway from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated August 28, 2015. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 6, 2016, that branch of the respondent's motion which was to strike Point IV of the appellant's replacement brief was granted, that branch of the respondent's motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130.1-1 to impose a sanction upon the appellant and/or his counsel, and for an award of costs was held in abeyance, and the parties were directed to file affirmations or affidavits concerning the respondent's actual expenses and attorney's fee incurred in connection with the respondent's motion.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the affirmation of Jennifer C Kruglinski dated April 14, 2016, the affirmation of Jennifer Kouzi dated May 10, 2016, and the reply affirmation of Jennifer C. Kruglinski dated May 17, 2016, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the respondent's motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130.1-1 to impose a sanction upon the appellant and/or his counsel, and for an award of costs is granted to the extent that within 20 days after service upon it of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the appellant's counsel, Kaminer Kouzi & Associates, LLP, is directed to pay a sanction in the sum of $1,595.90 as a reasonable attorney's fee for the respondent (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]), and shall pay that sum to the attorney for the respondent, and that branch of the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that within 10 days after payment of the sanction, Kaminer Kouzi & Associates, LLP, shall file proof of payment with the Clerk of this Court.

 In light of the decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 4, 2016, the inclusion of Point IV in the appellant's replacement brief was completely without merit and could not be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Accordingly, a sanction in the amount set forth above is appropriate.

DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court