Kopek v Denton

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Kopek v Denton 2018 NY Slip Op 34059(U) January 12, 2018 Supreme Court, Oneida County Docket Number: EFCA2017-002231 Judge: Bernadette T. Clark Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/12/2018 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 INDEX NO. EFCA2017-002231 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2018 At of Court of At a a term term of Supreme Supreme Court of the the State State of New York held in and and for for the the County of of New York held in (?f County Oneida at the the Oneida Oneida at Oneida County Cqurthouse, Courthouse, County 200 200 Elizabeth Elizabeth Street, Utica, New New York York on on Street, Utica, the 13th 13th day of December 2017. the of December 2017. day PRESENT: PRESENT: HONORABLE BERNADETIE_T. HONORABLE BERNADETTE T. CLARK CLARK Justice Justice Presiding Presiding OF NEW STATE OF STATE NEW YORK YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ONEIDA ONEIDA SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ROBERT~KOPEK,JR. ROBERT J. KOPEK, JR. DECISION AND ORDER ORDER DECISION AND Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, -against-against- . EFCA2017-002231 Index No. Index No. EFCA2017-002231 RJI No.: 32-17-0923 RJI No.: 32-17-0923 . ROBERT J. DENTON, ROBERT J. JR. JR. And And DENTON, JULIE GROW DENTON, JULIE GROW DENTON, Defendant. Defendant. APPEARANCES: APPEARANCES: John G. Esq. John G. Leonard, Esq. Leonard, for Attorney for Plaindff, ROBERT JJ..KOPEK, .. KOPEK, JR. ROBERT JR. Plaintiff, Attorney Donald Donald R. Esq. R. Gerace, Esq. Gerace, for Julie :Attorney for Defendant, Julie Grow Denton Grow Denton Defendant, Attorney Clark, J. J. Clark, Procedural History· Procedural History On November On November 21, Defendants, Robert J. Jr. Grow Denton Robert J. Denton, and Julie Julie Jr. and Denton Grow 21, 2017, 2017, Defendants, Denton, · (hereinafter (hereinafter Defendant, Robert Denton and Julie Grow Denton) filed aa Motion to Robert Denton and Defendant Defendant Julie Grow filed Motion to Defendant, Denton) . . Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to C~LR Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to l(a)(S) and or CPLR 321 and (a)(7); or in in the the alternative alternative (a)(7); 3211(a)(5) I1 Filed In County Clerks Office Filed In Oneida Oneida Clerks Office County 1 03:29:19 of 8 I 9 PM 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 03:29 PM Index# Index 0 EFCA2017-002231 EFCA2017-002231 [*FILED: 2] ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/12/2018 03:29 PM INDEX NO. EFCA2017-002231 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2018 order for the the Robert J. Denton, Jr. a a sealing granting Defendants Summary Judgment; granting Robert J. Jr. order for Defendants Judgment; Denton, sealing granting Summary granting and against the Plaintiff Plaintiff case and to Julie Grow Denton S8!}Ctions against the and case file; and granting to Defendant, Grow Denton sanctions Julie file; Defendant, granting 1.1. counsel Section 130. 1.1. Plaintiff's Plaintiff's counsel pursuant pursuant to to 22 22 NYCRR NYC~ Section 130. Plaintiff's Defendants published statement Plaintiff's complaint alleged that both Defendants published aa defamatory statement complaint alleged that both defamatory Ugg!" to fifty "Coach Kopek toucher! about their daughter's hockey coach "Coach Kopek is to five about their coach is a a toucher!® 8 Uggl'~ five hockey, daughter's hockey. hockey fifty Ugg via email. District families via After an by the County District Attorney's Office, families After an investigation investigation the Oneida Oneida Attorney's email. Office, by County Misdemeanor. with Class A Misdemeanor. was was charged charged with Criminal Criminal Impersonation, aa Class A Defendant, Robert Denton Robert Denton Defendant, Impersonation, amended of two two April Defendant Thereafter, on April 13, Defendant pied guilty to charge of to an an amended charge on or or about about pled 13, 2017, Thereafter, 2017, guilty was and gave gave a in Rome Rome City Court where he was counts of Harassment Harassment detailed allocution counts of 22"dnd and allocution in Court where he a detailed City Assistant the allocution, questioned the Assist~t and the the presiding Judge. questioned by the District Attorney and presiding Judge. During the District allocution, by Attomey During out the the alleged Defendant, Robert Denton admitted his which included sending out Robert Denton conduct which included admitted his conduct alleged Defendant, sending email from multiple and IP IP addresses. addresses. computers defamatory email from multiple computers and defamatory a' Opposition On December December filed an Affirmation Affirmation in Opposition On 6, Plaintiffs filed an in as as Plaintiffs as well well as an an 2017, 6, 2017, , Defendants' . Cross-Motion Affidavit to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff also filed Affidavit in Opposition to also filed . aa Cross-Motion . in Opposition Motion to Dismiss. 1 laintiff and for for disclosure. on December December to deny the Motion Motion disclosure. Oral argument argument was held held 2017 ·seeking to and Oral was on 13, 13, 2017 deny the seeking and the the Court reserved Decision the issue issue of argument Court on the sanctions. After extensive oral argument and reserved Decision only on pf sanctions. After extensive oral only the Court the Cause for Defamation Court dismissed Cause of Action Action Defamation as against against by both both counsel, the dismissed the of for as Defendant, Defendant, counsel, by Julie Grow the one one year Julie since 'the year Statute Statute of Limitations Limitations had expired expired at least least eight months Grow Denton, since of had at months eight Denton, to Plaintiff's on or prior to Compliant being served on November 3, Plaintiff's Compliant served or about 2017. about November 3, 2017. being prior Defendants' In addition, the Court Court granted In the granted Defendants' Motion to on of for Motion to Dismiss Action for Dismiss on the the Cause Cause of Action addition, Infliction of Emotional Emotional Distress based upon the alleged Negligent Infliction of Distress based upon the facts in Here, all alleged facts in the the case. all of of case. Here, Negligent . ' the Plaintiffs s allegations Plaintiff against both Defendants the against both were intentional acts an allegations intentional and therefore Defendants were acts and action therefore an action 2 2 2 of 8 [*FILED: 3] ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/12/2018 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 INDEX NO. EFCA2017-002231 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2018 survive. The Court Infliction Distress cannot had Plaintiff Plaintiff for Negligent Infliction of Distress cannot survive. The notes that ·for Negligent of Emotional Emotional Court notes that had Emotional the alleged that claimed claimed Jntentional Intentional Infliction Infliction of of Emotional Distress, which arguably fit fit the alleged facts, that which facts, Distress, arguably since one year of Limitations as well. well. would also been dismissed since it of as claim would also have. dismissed it has has a a one year Statute Statute Limitations claim have.been defamation action relevant case law context of a a defamation of action the relevant law indicates indicates such a a claim claim in the the context Moreover, the case such in Moreover, (4th duplicative and also not survive. survive. Rozanski v. Fitch, 1010 (4th Dep't would be also would would Rozanski v. Fitch, 113 113 A.O. A.D. 2d 2d 1010 Dep't would be duplicative and not in part Plaintiff's Cross Motion Defendant 1985). 1985), In In addition, the the Court Court denied denied Plaintiff's Cross Motion in part as as it it related related to to Defendant addition, on the Julie Grow Motion in part related to Robert Robert Denton and granted granted the Motion as it it related Jr. on the Julie Grow Denton and the in part as to Denton, Jr. Denton, claim. stated the Court Court Defendant Julie _As previously stated the reserved Decision on Julie defamation claim. defamation .As reserved Decision on the the Defendant As previously Grow claim for sanctions the subject subject Grow Denton's claim for against Plaintiff and counsel which is Denton's against Plaintiff and Plaintifrs Plaintiff's counsel which is the sanctions of this and Order. of this Decision Decision and Order. ORDER DECISION AND ORDER DECISION AND Administrator 130-1 of the the New Rules of the the Chief Chief Courts Subpart 130-1 of New York Rules of Administrator of Subpart York of the the Courts "costs" fines for frivolous which conduct. The first first is "costs" which established two distinct distinct categories of fines frivolous of for conduct. The is established two categories reasonable frivolous reimburses reasonable attorneys fees expenses incurred as reimburses and actual actual expenses incurred as a a result result of of frivolous attorneys fees and "sanctions" which conduct. The second second is "sanctions" which as punishment. Court has is as punishment. The has conduct. The is is a a sum sum imposed imposed The Court discretion grant maximum of $10,000.00. discretion to sanctions up of to grant sanctions to a a maximum $10,000.00. up to well be done It is is well settled a Court or both It settled that awards either costs or both it be done in must in that if if a Court awards either costs or or sanctions sanctions it must decision written forth the offending deemed aa written decision setting that conduct conduct has been been deemed forth the conduct, why that has conduct, offending why setting frivolous the amount and why is appropriate. Court is A may costs frivolous and the awarded amount awarded A Court impose appropriate. award costs or or impose why may award sanctions upon Motion or sua but the party sanctions upon Motion or but the party to sua sponte sponte be sanctioned sanctioned must must be given aa reasonable reasonable to be be given to be heard. This to be not always opportunity to be heard. This opportunity to be heard does require aa formal hearing heard does not formal always require opportunity opportunity hearing notice and written .written and the the option but certainly notice and response, and for written if is• option for a a hearing, if requested, is required required certainly response, hearing, requested, but . 33 3 of 8 [*FILED: 4] ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/12/2018 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 INDEX NO. EFCA2017-002231 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2018 . 0 • . a 130-1.1 22 NYCRR 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 impose CPLR A Court to simultaneously pursuant to CPLR A is to impose sanctions pursuant to empowered sanctions Court is empowered simultaneously as conduct that: for frivolous frivolous which is defined defined conduct 8303-1 and NYCRR 130 conduct which is as that: and 22 22 NYCRR 130 for conduct 8303-1 and cannot supported 1) without merit in be supported by is completely merit in law law and cannot be without by 1) is completely of extension or reversal reversal aa reasonable argument argument for for an an extension modification modification or of reasonable undertaken to or the existing law; 2) is is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the law; prolong existing 2) primarily delay the litigation or to to harass harass or maliciously injure resolutio~ of or or injure resolution of the litigation maliciously that are false. material factual statements asserts false. another, or; material factual statements that are another, or; 3) 3) asserts shall consider the In determining undertaken frivolous the Court In whether whether the the conduct conduct undertaken was was frivolous the Court shall consider the determining for investigating under conduct time available circumstances which the conduct took place the time for circumstances under which the took place including the available investigating including should be made after the legal legal awarded under this part or factual factual of the the conduct. conduct. Sanctions Sanctions awarded under this part should be mad~ after the or basis of basis .. heard.. .. It note that that both counsel It is important to note the parties have had an an opportunity to be heard to both parties parties counsel to be is important the parties have had opportunity further of sanctions gave counsel counsel addressed the issue issue sanctions oral argument. argument. the Court Court addressed the of during oral Moreover, the gave further Moreover, during that both stated oral argument argument opportunity to fully brief the however, both counsel stated at that more brief the issue, counsel at the the oral to more however, issue, fully opportunity hearing. need a a hearing. did not want further and they did not not need not want make submissions they to any submissions and to make they did they did any further October This dated This is case Plaintiff, through aa Verified Complaint dated October defamation case where where through Verified Complaint is a a defamatic;m Plaintiff, alleged Denton published the alleged other that Defendant, Julie Grow 17, alleged, among other things, that Julie Grow Denton published the 17, 2017, things, 2017, alleged, Defendant, among 2016. upon the operative operative Court statement on February Defamatory statement on Based facts the Court 12, Based upon the facts the verily 12, 2016. verily Defamatory February was or or should have been a one one year year Statute Statute of believes that that ~t it was should obvious to any that a have been obvious to that of attorney any attQ.mey believes . - Limitations defamation action. dispute alleged governs cause of action. There is no no dispute that the the allegec,l conduct .. Limitations governs aa defamation cause of There is that conduct 17thth occurred on February and the the Verified sworn occurred on 12, ~d Complaint was to 17 2016 Verified Complaint was sworn October to on on October 12, 2016 17'", , 2017, 2017, February one year year and and eight eight later. when the Complaint October months Complaint was verified verified on October one months later. Thus, when the was on 17, Thus, 17, 2017, 2017, that Defendant, Julie Grow Denton it was conduct alleging that Julie Grow Denton committed aa defamation it condu~t committed defamation was frivolous frivolous Defendant, alleging of Limitations the Statute Statute Limitations had been expired for eight eight months was no no basis in because the of had been expired for months and was basis in and there there because fact or or law law and and no no reasonable reasonable could to extend, argument be made fact argument could be made to modify or the or reverse reverse the existing extend, modify existing law. Complaint against someone these law. Thus, filing aa Complaint against someone under these circumstances was frivolous. under frivolous. circumstances was clearly Thus, filing clearly 4 4 4 of 8 . [*FILED: 5] ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/12/2018 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 INDEX NO. EFCA2017-002231 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2018 does allow allow for tolling the end there, . However, the the inquiry does because because CPLR CPLR §215(8) does for the does not not end there, However, inquiry tolling §215(8) Robert Statute of Limitations under circumstances. On March March <:>fLimitations under limited limited circumstances. On 6, Defendant, Robert Statute Defendant, 2017, 6, 2017, 3rd theft in the Class A Denton, Jr. Jr. was was charged hi Rome City Court Court with with identity theft in the 3rd Degree, aa Class A charged in Rome Degree, Denton, City identity Robert a.violation. Misdemeanor which was reduced to 22ndnd Degree, a violation. Defendant, Robert which reduced to harassment Misdemeanor was later later harassment Degree, Defendant, on April 2017. his allocution, Denton, Jr, pled guilty to on 13, During ,Us Defendant, to two two violations violations April Defendant, allocution, Denton, Jr, pled 13, 2017. During guilty on February 2016 the alleged emails to the defamatory emails on 12, Robert Denton, Jr., Robert admitted to sending alleged 12, 2016 Jr., admitted February Denton, defamatory sending the allocution, a regarding the Plaintiff. Not Not only was Plaintiff present in in Court Court during the he he had had a the Plaintiff. was Plaintiff present allocution, regarding only during were copy of transcript of As Plaintiff and were very of the the certified of the allocution. As a a result, Plaintiff and his his attorney certified transcript the allocution. result, very attorney copy admitted the to all all of of the the conduct conduct on the aware on 13, that Robert Denton, Jr. to on aware Robert Jr. admitted on April April 2017 that Defendant, Denton, 13, 2017 Defendant, Complaint alleges was alleged in the Complaint. same conduct which.the dates in This is same which.the Complaint alleges was dates aileged the Complaint. This is the the very conduct very Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Plaintiff's done by Defendant, Julie Grow Denton. Moreover, both the and attorney Grow Denton. both the Plaintiff done by Julie Defendant, Moreover, attorney crime or Julie Grow never charged with were well aware that Julie Grow Denton was charged with any or well aware that Defendant, Denton was never were Defendant, any crime an expert expert forensic evaluation to which included an forensic evaluation relating to violation after an investigation violation after an extensive extensive investigation which included relating matter. Plaintiff knew or should have this matter. his attorney known that the the tolling '.fhus, Plaintiff and knew or should have known that this and his Thus, tolling attorney Grow would Julie Denton to provisions in in N.Y. CPLR §215(8) not apply to Defendant, N.Y. CPLR would certainly not to Julie Grow Denton to Defendant, §215(8) certainly apply provisions in the Statute the date the criminal action resolved. Yet in extend the of to the action was Yet extend of Limitations Limitations to run run from from date the criminal was resolved. Statute spite of and his filed on or or about about spite the and filed aa Verified Complaint on of that that knowledge knowledge the Plaintiff Plaintiff Verified Complaint his attorney attorney Defamation Infliction October Grow Denton for Defamation 17, suing Defendant, Julie Julie Grow Denton for and and Negligent Negligent Infliction October 2017 Defendant, 17, 2017 suing Emotional Distress. of Emotional important note that that both and the Plaintiff signed of Distress. It to both the and signed aa It is is important to note the attorney the Plaintiff attorney certification pursuant to 22 22 NYCRR that the the contentions NYCRR §§130-1 130-1 indicating that contentions contained contained in in this this certification pursuant to indicating document were document were not not frivolous. frivolous. . . Defendants' In response to Defendants' Motion response to Dismiss In to to in affirmation dated December Motion Dismiss in his dated his attorney affirmation December attorney in paragraph 6, in paragraph 8, states: it states: 6, 2017, 2017, 8, it "I read read the of Attorney the allegations allegations Gerace of Gerace that J~hn Dillon who represented that Attorney Dillon represented "I John who Attorney Attorney 55 5 of 8 [*FILED: 6] ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/12/2018 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 . INDEX NO. EFCA2017-002231 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2018 Julie Youth brought Grow Denton Rome Rome Youth Hockey Association Association in in an an action action brought by by Julie Grow Denton purportedly purportedly Hockey wrong." spóken never with that "Mrs. know have never John stated "Mrs. did know · stated that Denton did wrong." II have spoken with Attorney John Denton Attorney case and authorize Dillon to make Dillon civil and did not authorize about Robert Kopek's case did not Attorney Dillon to make Dillon about Robert Kopek's civil Attorney arrest contacted after such In Robert Robert J. Jr's. Jr's. arrest II was was contacted by Robert Robert such representation. In fact fact after J. Denton, representation. Denton, by our been intention an action J. Kopek regarding a civil action action and and it it has has always always been our intention to to bring an q.ction J. Kopek a civil bring regarding Denton." added). against both Robert and Grow Denton." (Emphasis addeq). both Robert Julie Grow (Emphasis against and Julie· ' six months Robert Denton all of of Once Once again, this after after Defendant, Robert Denton admitted admitted to to sending all this is is six months again, Defendant, sending the emails. the emails. Wherefore in the paragraph which is the the Wherefore legal reason Thereafter, i~ paragraph which is clause clause without without any reason the next next Thereafter, any legal the Court or explanation it states states "the Plaintiff that the defamation explanation requests Court dismiss the defamation or it ''the Plaintiff respectfully requests that dismiss the respectfully cause of of action action against Julie against Julie Grow Denton. cause Grow Denton. Court the The Court request at this this stage of the the litigation litigation after The finds finds Plaintiff's Plaintiff's request at stage of after receiving the receiving legal obligation and Defendant's Motion Motion to to Dismiss, to be wholly inadequate inadequate and and contrary to obligation and to his his legal Defendant's to be Dismiss, contrary wholly . an attorney. can ~e be no no doubt as an attorney. There under these facts and circumstances circumstances an responsibility as There can that these facts and an doubt that under responsibility certified an action or should should who was not not frivolous after reasonable reasonable knew attorney who certified that was after inquiry knew or that an action frivolous attorney inquiry have known known the Statute Statute for eight eight time he sued sued that the of Limitations Limitations had been expired months the time have that of had been expired for mon~s at he at the Julie' this case case ag~nst Grow conduct against Denton. The Court, finds that the the Attorney's Attorney's this Defendant, Julie·Grow Denton. The finds that conduct Julie Defendant, Court, 130-1.1 in that was ~volous frivolous as defined defined under 22 NYCRR action for defamation defamation against was as under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 in for against that an an action . Grow Julie in law law and Defendant, Julie Grow Denton, was without merit in be supported by was completely without merit supported and cannot cannot be Defendant, Denton, completely by reasonable reversal of existing the aa reasonable argument fox: modification or of law. Certainly, the argument for an an extension, modification or reversal law. extension, Certainly, existing one year year Statute Statute of Limitations Defamation one of Limitations for. for a a Defamation case case is is well settled settled and and known known at least by by the the well at least second student.. of a a first semester first March investigation year law law student.. as of of March the investigation second semester of year Moreover, as 6, the Moreover, 6, 2017, 2017, which to the the pleadings, which Plaintiffs were apprised according to pleadings, Plaintiffs were kept of, in of arrest of kept apprised culminated in the the arrest of, culminated according Robert Denton. Most in this this Court's the plea on April April Defendant, Robert Denton. Most importantly in view, the plea allocutio:Q on Court's allocution Defendant, view, importantly at which which the Plaintiffs Plaintiffs were confirmed 13, at the were present, confirmed that Julie Grow Denton, did Grow did that Defendant, Julie 13, 2017, 2017, present, Denton, Defendant, not send the email email on February send the as alleged alleged in the the Complaint not on 12, as in six later. Thus, as Complaint six months later. as months 12, 2016, 2016, February Thus, 6 6 6 of 8 . [*FILED: 7] ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/12/2018 03:29 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 INDEX NO. EFCA2017-002231 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2018 of April April there or even possible that Defendant, of 13, there was or possible belief belief that 2017 was no no reasonable reasonable even a a remotely Defendant, 13, 2017 remotely would Statute Julie Grow with crime that would have tolled tolled the one one year year Statute of Grow Denton, would be charged with aa crime that have the of would be charged Julie Denton, pursuant to CPLR CPLR §215(8). Limitations Limitations pursuant to §215(8). in this facts arid and circumstances finds that in fit?-ds·that based upon the facts this case case the the Court Court Accordingly, based upon the circumstances Accordingly, . . Leonard's conduct in suing Denton for defamation defamation eight months Attorney Leonard's conduct in Defendant, Julie Julie Grow Grow Denton for eight months Defendant, suing Attorney 130year Statute after the the one frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR expired was conduct under 22 NYCRR 130after of Limitations expired was frivolous one year . Statute of . Limitations . ' that under these circumstances the appropriate appropriate is to to 1.1. Therefore, the finds, that un~er these the remedy is · 1.1. ·· the Court Court circumstances Therefore, finds, remedy and legal Julie Grow Denton for having to incur incur costs legal to defend defend this compensate Defendant, Julie Grow Den~on for to costs and fees this compensate fees to Defendant, having Defendants' Affirmation of by filing the to Defendants' counsel is to of action the Motion Motion to Dismiss. is ·directed directed to file file an an Affirmation action Dismiss. counsel by filing within 30 his costs costs and and fees his defense defense of Defendant, Julie Grow his with respect to of Julie Grow Denton, within 30 fees only with respect to his Denton, Defendant, only will to Plaintiffs Plaintiff's and request request days to attorney. Plaintiffs attorney will be entitled to and aa days on on notice notice Plaintiff's attorney. be entitled to respond respond attorney Defendants' within on the amount of attorney's attorney's receipt of Defendants' Affirmation. Affirmation. of fees 30 receipt of the amount fees within 30 days days after after hearing on hearing the Court the amount of $500.00 Plaintiff's of$500.00 to be paid paid by by Plaintiff's Court sanctions in the amount to be Moreover, the awards sanctions in awards Moreover, within 30 days days of of this this Order. to "Oneida "Oneida Supreme Attorney within 30 Payment is be made to County Supreme Order. Payment is to to be made Attorney County Court" thereafter and thereafter payment will be Lawyers Fund for Client Protection of the the and payment will be forwarded to Fund for Protection of forwarded to the the Lawyers Client Court" State of of New State New York. It York. It is, is, hereby hereby ORDERED that pursuant CPLR 8303-i 8303-1 and 22 22 NYCRR Court ORDERED that pursuant to NY CPLR and NYCRR 130-1.1, the to NY the Court 130-1.1, awards sanctions for frivolous frivolous in the to be awards sanctions for conduct against Plaintiffs attorney in of$500.00 to be against Plaintiff's the amount amount of $500.00 conduct attorney days of of this within 30 days forward the 30 to County Supreme Court which will forward the paid within this Order Order to Oneida Oneida Supreme Court which will County paid to the the I;,awyers State ofNew of New York; Fund for Protection of and payment to Lawyers Fund for Client Client Protection of the the State is further further and it it is York; payment ORDERED that pursuant CPLR 8303-a 22 NYCRR ORDERED that pursuant to N.Y. CPLR and NYCRR 130-1.1, Plaintiffs to N.Y. 8303-a and 22 Plaintiff's 130-1.1, shall reasonable pay reasonable attorney fees conduct to Julie Grow fees for•frivolous for frivolous conduct to Defendant, attorney shall Grow Julie attorney pay Defendant, attorney Denton the defense for the defense of this Denton for of to be determined as above. this action action to be determined as set forth above. set forth 7 7 7 of 8 [*FILED: 8] ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/12/2018 03:29 PM INDEX NO. EFCA2017-002231 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2018 This shall constitute Decision the ~ecision and Order. Order. The original original Decision and Order Order This shall constitute the and The Decision and is is returned to the the attorney for the the Plaintiff. Plaintiff. All other other by the to returned to for All papers are delivered papers are being delivered the Court Court to the the attorney being by Clerk for filing. filing. The signing of this this Decision, Order does not not constitute constitute or filing of Order does entry or County Clerk for The County Decision, signing entry filing CPLR Rule relieved Rule 2200. Counsel is not not relieved.from from is under CPLR 2200. Counsel rule applicable applicable provisions of provisions of that that rule under entry. of respecting filing, entry and. notice notice of entry. filing, respecting entry . and ENTER: ENTER: January 12, 2018 12, 2018 January New Utica, New York. York. Utica, , o p 8 8 8 of 8 . Bernadette me Court T. Clark Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.