Court Denies Motion For Sanctions Based On Anticipated Motion

On June 11, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen denied Defendants’ motion for sanctions in anticipation of a motion by the individual plaintiff to renew or reargue the Court’s prior dismissal of the action in Zaklady Tytoniowe W. Lubline S.A. v. MS Global Funding LLC, Index No. 652975/2014, on forum non conveniens grounds. The plaintiff indicated he planned to file a motion for renewal or reargument, and Defendants filed a motion for, inter alia, sanctions under 22 NYCRR 1301.1. The Court denied the motion without prejudice as premature, explaining:

With regard to sanctions, the Fund Defendants chiefly argue that Emami’s contemplated motion is frivolous and designed to harass (NYSCEF 371, at 3-4). To perhaps state the obvious, the Court cannot evaluate the merit of a motion that has not yet been filed. By contrast, the cases upon which the Fund Defendants rely on sanctionable conduct that had already occurred (see Miller v Cruise Fantasies, Ltd., 74 AD3d 919, 920 [2d Dept 2010]; see also Marx v Rosalind & Joseph Gurwin Jewish Geriatric Ctr. Of Long Island, Inc., 148 AD3d 696, 697 [2d Dept 2017]). Thus, the motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice as premature.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan frequently litigate motions for to reargue or renew and for sanctions. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.