However, it is not unusual for attorneys to prefer resolving legal matters in Court. As a
professional courtesy, Counsel for Respondent could have communicated to Petitioner's Counsel
that the Respondent was out of town and unavailable to appear in Court on the September 25th
Show Cause date. While, an attorney who exhibits a lack of common courtesy tarnishes the
image of the legal profession (Principe v. Assay Partners, 154 Misc 2d 702), the conduct must
rise to the level required of Rule 130-1.2 to be sanctionable.
However, Petitioner is not claiming any wrongdoing on the Respondent's part concerning the
September 25th Court date . Petitioner argues that Respondent should have executed the
Stipulation between the adjourned date because the matter was essentially resolved. Respondent's
counsel contends that his client was still out of town on the adjourned date and therefore unable
to sign the Stipulation.
Again, the Court agrees that the October 9th Court appearance could have been avoided. The
fact that the lawyers could not work out an agreement (perhaps a stipulation of adjournment)
without coming to Court does not constitute frivolous conduct. Accordingly Petitioner's motion
for attorney's fees is denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
DATED: November 1, 2007
_______________________________
Sylvia G. Ash, J.C.C.