Attorney's Actions Weren't Frivolous

February 1, 1993

LVT Number: 6679

Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. The court issued a ``decision and judgment'' in landlord's favor for over $15,000. Given the language of a ``judgment'' being issued, landlord's attorney served a restraining notice on tenant's bank account the next day. The judgment wasn't actually entered until three days later. The court vacated the restraining notice as premature and imposed $5,000 costs against landlord's attorney for frivolous conduct designed to harass tenant.

Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. The court issued a ``decision and judgment'' in landlord's favor for over $15,000. Given the language of a ``judgment'' being issued, landlord's attorney served a restraining notice on tenant's bank account the next day. The judgment wasn't actually entered until three days later. The court vacated the restraining notice as premature and imposed $5,000 costs against landlord's attorney for frivolous conduct designed to harass tenant. Landlord appealed, and the appeals court found that the attorney's actions weren't frivolous and that his interpretation of the court's order wasn't completely without merit. It was unreasonable to conclude that the attorney's action was designed to harass tenant. Also, tenant suffered no injury from the attorney's action.

[West Coast Co. v. Beretta: NYLJ, p. 21, col. 2 (1/12/93) (App. T. 1 Dept.; Parness, JP, Miller, McCooe, JJ)].

Topics

More like this