Nestor v. Britt, 16 Misc. 3d 368 (2007)

Citation: Nestor v. Britt, 16 Misc. 3d 368 (2007)
Parent Document: Nestor v. Britt, 16 Misc. 3d 368 (2007)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2007-04-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6308349/nestor-v-britt/ ↗

Full Text

1,120 chars

Petitioners contend that respondent should not have spent so much time defending a proceeding he claimed was so frivolous he moved for sanctions. That argument puts an unfair burden on respondent. It is like petitioners saying that their proceeding was meritorious when they brought it but frivolous after they lost it. In addition, whether Judge Jackman-Brown’s dismissal of the 2005 holdover proceeding based on the invalidity of the 2005 notice left the 2002 notices valid and whether respondent was a tenant at sufferance were interesting if not quite novel questions. They were not frivolous to the key players: petitioners for making them, respondent for opposing them, and Judge Lansden for spending nine pages deciding them. Respondent’s March 2006 warning letter and later motion for sanctions were, from respondent, acts of bravado perhaps and certainly frustration that led to Judge Lansden’s denying the motion and this court’s not granting any fees to make the motion. But the letter and the motion do not take away from respondent’s attorneys’ legitimate effort to oppose petitioner’s attempts at eviction.

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text