Court Opinion

ID: 5830622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 22:16:49.304757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:26.738161
License: Public Domain

The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant’s underlying motion for an emergency stay contained “false charges [against plaintiff] that were expressed by means of a tortured and very partial rendering of the facts that can only have been deliberately crafted to mislead” and was therefore frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see e.g. Rogovin v Rogovin, 27 AD3d 233 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.