Justice Arthur Engoron
The court questioned where "to draw the line between mere discourtesy and sanctionable misconduct." Plaintiffs sued for alleged rent overcharges. Summary judgment on liability was granted in plaintiffs’ favor, and assessment of damages and subsequent attorney fees was ordered. Defendants moved the Appellate Division, where they perfected an appeal, to stay the damages hearing. The hearing was stayed conditioned on defendants posting an undertaking. Plaintiffs now moved for attorney fees claiming defendants failed to inform them they were applying for a bond causing plaintiffs unnecessary work in litigating a subpoena, among other motion practice. The court opined if a party could be sanctioned for failing to save its adversary money, noting doing so would cause no prejudice to itself. It answered in the negative finding the conduct at issue here was not sanctionable, stating while 22 NYCRR Part 130 could expressly provide that failing to save an adversary money was sanctionable, it did not. Also, the court found a code of conduct prohibiting causing an adversary to waste money would be difficult to interpret and enforce, noting further, that attorney-client privilege issues may arise. Hence, the motion was denied.
