Palisades Collection, LLC v Cerrito

[*1] Palisades Collection, LLC v Cerrito 2010 NY Slip Op 50467(U) [26 Misc 3d 1239(A)] Decided on February 11, 2010 Poughkeepsie City Court, Dutchess County Moloney, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 11, 2010
Poughkeepsie City Court, Dutchess County

Palisades Collection, LLC, Plaintiff,

against

Michael E. Cerrito, Defendant.



CV-08-728



Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq.

Pressler & Pressler

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

305 Broadway, 9th Floor

New York, NY 10007

Michael E. Cerrito

Defendant, pro se

28 Vineyard Road

Edison, NJ 08817

Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection

119 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 11210

Katherine A. Moloney, J.

By Decision and Order of this Court dated December 4, 2009, this Court ordered a hearing to determine whether sanctions needed to be imposed upon plaintiff's attorneys for filing a frivolous debt collection suit without first assessing the legal and factual basis of the claim. Palisades Collection, LLC. v. Cerrito, 2009 NY Slip Op. 52433U (Poughkeepsie City Court, Dec. 4, 2009). A hearing was ordered by this Court and scheduled to be held January 25, 2010. Notice of the hearing was sent to Pressler & Pressler law firm on or about December 23, 2009. The notice instructed Pressler and Pressler law firm that they must appear before this Court on said hearing date. On January 25, 2010, no attorney appeared on behalf of Pressler & Pressler law firm. No explanation was offered for their failure to appear, despite being provided adequate notice of the scheduled appearance for the attorney sanction hearing. The Pressler & Pressler law firm failed to notify the court in advance that they would be unable to appear. No substitute counsel appeared in court at the time previously scheduled to proffer an explanation of the attorney's nonappearance. No affirmation of actual engagement was ever filed with the Court. To date, no explanation or form of communication has been made setting forth an excuse their failure to appear. The waste of judicial resources this law firm has saddled this Court with by failing to follow standard proper procedures in accordance with the C.P.L.R. and their demonstration of contempt for this Court's Order warrants the imposition of sanctions in accordance with the power vested in this Court through the authority of 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1. See, Rizzuto v. Rizzuto, 5 AD3d 579 (2d Dept. 2004).

THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, it is now

ORDERED that the law firm of Pressler & Pressler are hereby sanctioned and ordered to pay $1,000.00 in accordance with 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.3.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February ____, 2010____________________________

Poughkeepsie, New YorkKATHERINE A. MOLONEY

CITY COURT JUDGE

ENTERED this ____day of February 2010___________________________

JEAN JICHA, Chief Clerk