Part 130 Rules

Part 130 Rules were subsequently created, effective January 1, 1989, to give the courts an additional remedy to deal with frivolous conduct. These stand beside Appellate Division disciplinary case law against attorneys for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. The Court, in Gordon v. Marrone (202 AD2d 104, 110, 616 N.Y.S.2d 98 [2d Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 813, 647 N.E.2d 453, 623 N.Y.S.2d 181 [1995]), instructed that: Conduct is frivolous and can be sanctioned under the court rule if "it is completely without merit . . . and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; or . . . it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another" (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c] [1], [2] . . .). The Court, in Kernisan, M.D. v. Taylor (171 AD2d 869, 567 N.Y.S.2d 794 [2d Dept 1991]), noted that the intent of the Part 130 Rules "is to prevent the waste of judicial resources and to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics (cf. Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Church of City of New York v. 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411, 559 N.E.2d 429, 559 N.Y.S.2d 866; see Steiner v. Bonhamer, 146 Misc 2d 10, 549 N.Y.S.2d 340)." Since at least June 23, 2009 and probably since May 19, 2009, the instant action is "a waste of judicial resources." This conduct, as noted in Levy, must be deterred. In Weinstock v. Weinstock (253 AD2d 873, 678 N.Y.S.2d 349 [2d Dept 1998]) the Court ordered the maximum sanction of $ 10,000.00 for an attorney who pursued an appeal "completely without merit," and holding, at 874, that "[w]e therefore award the maximum authorized amount as a sanction for this conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1) calling to mind that frivolous litigation causes a substantial waste of judicial resources to the detriment of those litigants who come to the Court with real grievances." Citing Weinstock, the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Bernadette Panzella, P.C. v. De Santis (36 AD3d 734, 830 N.Y.S.2d 200 [2d Dept 2007]) affirmed a Supreme Court, Richmond County $ 2,500.00 sanction, at 736, as "appropriate in view of the plaintiff's waste of judicial resources."