The following papers numbered 1 to 4 were read on this motion:

Petitioners bring their motion seeking an Order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, awarding sanctions against respondent. This Court issued a Decision and Order in September 2025 directing that "Within four business days of respondent's counsel's receipt of this Decision [*2]and Order, respondent is directed to send to petitioners a revised Itemized Statement of Lien setting forth all items of labor and/or material and the value thereof which make up the amount for which the lien is claimed. Should respondent fail to provide a revised Itemized Statement of Lien satisfying the requirements of Lien Law § 38, the lien shall be canceled. Petitioners may submit a proposed Order to the Court, on notice to respondent, for this relief."

Although respondent did submit a revised Itemized Statement of Lien to petitioners, the Court found that it did not comply with the Lien Law. The Court thus granted petitioners' request to cancel the lien.

Now, petitioners claim that respondent's conduct throughout this litigation has been "blatantly frivolous." Specifically, petitioners contend that

respondent has repeatedly failed to timely respond to the Millings' demands for an Itemized Statement of the Lien. The Respondent's delay tactics are being done solely for the purpose of extending its baseless Lien for as long as possible, forcing the Millings to incur increased borrowing costs as a result of not being able to convert their construction loan into a traditional mortgage. Respondent did not even bother opposing the Millings' most recent motion to compel a sufficient Itemized Statement (despite delaying the proceedings by requesting two adjournments of the opposition deadline) leading the Court to issue an Order directing that the Lien be canceled if a sufficient revised Itemized Statement was not provided by September 15, 2025. In keeping with its delay tactics, Respondent waited until 7:43PM on September 15, the day before the Court would be issuing an order cancelling the Lien, before providing any response whatsoever to the Millings' motion. This conduct can only be construed as an intentional effort to delay the resolution of this litigation and extend the baseless Lien.

In response, respondent's counsel states that "at the time the demand was served I was having health issues that only exasperated over the following months, with me having to have multiple surgeries. It was for this reason that I primarily needed the extensions of time to address this demand and afford me the time to understand the underlying facts and confer with my client. There is no intent to delay or intentionally withhold information. I maintain that the revised itemization Sara submitted exceeds the standard required under § 38 of the lien law and Sara submitted same in good faith,, [sic] reflecting an accurate depiction of exactly how the lien amount was established."

The Court accepts counsel's statement about his health issues at face value. With respect to his assertion that the revised Itemized Statement "exceeds the standard required," the Court disagrees. Instead of setting forth the actual expenses he had incurred, respondent looked at the allocated cost of the item in the parties' contract, subtracted what petitioners actually spent, and claimed the difference as his "value." This is a misunderstanding of the Lien Law.

"The Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts grant the court discretion to impose financial sanctions and/or costs on a party or the party's attorney for engaging in frivolous conduct (22 NYCRR 130.1.1[a], [c][2])." Grozea v. Lagoutova, 67 AD3d 611, 888 N.Y.S.2d 507, 508 (1st Dept. 2009). In this case, the Court finds that while respondent's position was without merit, it was not frivolous. iGo Mktg. & Ent., LLC v. Hartbeat Prods., LLC, 217 AD3d 753, 755, 191 N.Y.S.3d 646, 649 (2d Dept. 2023) ("the record does not support a finding that the [*3]defendants' conduct was frivolous."). See also Khadka v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 139 AD3d 808, 809, 29 N.Y.S.3d 819 (2d Dept. 2016) ("The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to impose a monetary sanction, as the plaintiffs did not engage in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130—1.1."). The motion is denied in its entirety.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.