the parties to execute the Stipulation of Settlement. On October 9, 2007, the parties failed to
execute the agreement due to the instant dispute involving attorney's fees.
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to attorney's fees because this matter could
have been resolved without the October 9th Court date if Respondent had simply
signed the Stipulation of Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 (Rule 130-1.2) the Court may impose as a sanction,
attorney's fees when a party engages in frivolous conduct. Whether conduct is
frivolous depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Courts have found conduct which
cause one side to incur unnecessary expense (Wasson v. Mendik, 253 AD2d 711), harass the
opposing party (Board of Education of Liverpool Cent. School District v. Allen, 192 AD2d 1099,
leave to appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 846), vex and hinder attempts to move the case forward
(Lynn v. Barnes & Nobles Inc., 189 AD2d 560), or cause baseless litigation (Schermerhorn v.
Quinette, 28 AD2d 822) to be sanctionably frivolous.
Although the Court agrees with the Petitioner that this matter should have been
resolved without the October 9th Court appearance, the Court does not find
Respondent's conduct to be frivolous as defined by Rule 130-1.2. There was no evidence that
Respondent's conduct was designed to prolong or delay matters (Stow v. Stow, 262 AD2d 550),
or harass or vex Petitioner (Lynn v. Barnes & Nobles, supra.). Respondent's Show Cause Order
was designed to notify the Marshall that this matter was resolved and therefore appropriate. The
parties could have worked out the matter at this point, since Petitioner concerns pertaining to the
check and Respondent's concern that the Marshall might erroneously evict him were resolved.