Motion List Released on: March 26, 2021
By Dillon, J.P., Connolly, Nelson, Christopher, JJ. KENNETH GOTTLIEB, app, v. CHRISTINE A. COLONEL, ET AL., res — Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 14, 2016, a decision of the same court dated March 6, 2017, and a judgment of the same court also dated March 6, 2017, which were determined by decision and order of this Court dated February 19, 2020. On the Court’s own motion, in the decision and order of this Court dated February 19, 2020, the parties were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing sanctions and/or costs, if any, including appellate counsel fees, against the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) as this Court may deem appropriate. By order to show cause dated January 15, 2021, the parties were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing sanctions and/or costs, if any, including appellate counsel fees, against the appellant’s counsel, Pascazi Law Offices, PLLC, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) as this Court may deem appropriate. Now, upon the order to show cause contained in the decision and order of this Court dated February 19, 2020, the order to show cause dated January 15, 2021, and the papers filed in response thereto, it is ORDERED that the appellant is directed to pay costs to the respondents in the sum of $10,000 as reasonable appellate counsel fees and this sum shall be paid to the respondents’ attorney within 20 days after service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon counsel for the appellant; and it is further, ORDERED that the appellant’s counsel, Pascazi Law Offices, PLLC, is directed to pay costs to the respondents in the sum of $10,000 as reasonable appellate counsel fees and this sum shall be paid to the respondents’ attorney within 20 days after service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon counsel for the appellant; and it is further, ORDERED that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Dutchess 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; and it is further, ORDERED that within 10 days after payment of the awards of costs the appellant and the appellant’s counsel shall file proof of payment with the Clerk of this Court, via email at [email protected]. The appellant commenced the underlying defamation action against the management company of a condominium community where he lived and an employee of the management company, asserting that he was defamed when the management company’s employee published a written statement to the Town Prosecutor of the Town of Fishkill. The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated March 6, 2017, in effect, dismissed the complaint and awarded the respondents counsel fees in the sum of $5,800, payable by the appellant. This Court, inter alia, affirmed the judgment. This Court held that the respondents established, in support of their motion, that the statement was subject to an absolute privilege because it was pertinent to the issue in a pending Justice Court matter and the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. This Court also stated that Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the respondents reasonable counsel fees based upon the appellant’s frivolous conduct, observing that the Supreme Court had stated that it was “deeply troubled” that the appellant had commenced two defamation actions against the management company’s employee and another individual who had some connection to two Justice Court orders concerning the appellant’s dogs, and it was “reasonable to conclude” that the defamation actions were undertaken to harass and/or deter individuals from reporting future violations. On appeal, the appellant continued to raise arguments that were “completely without merit in law and [could not] be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]). Moreover, these arguments were undertaken primarily to harass or maliciously injure another (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1], [2]). Accordingly, based on the papers submitted in response to the orders to show cause, the imposition of reasonable appellate counsel fees incurred against the appellant and the appellant’s counsel are warranted pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c), in the amounts indicated. DILLON, J.P., CONNOLLY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
