Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

In re Elizabeth R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 3, 1996

228 A.D.2d 445; 643 N.Y.2d 224; 643 N.Y.S.2d 224; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6207

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Dorothy N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Muzio v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Weh Chih Wang v. SDI International, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re Eastrin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*446The petitioner commenced this proceeding to have a guardian appointed on behalf of her sister, Elizabeth R, alleging that Elizabeth R. was incapable of handling her personal and financial needs due to her use of drugs and alcohol. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and imposed sanctions upon the appellants, finding that the commencing and continuing of this proceeding was frivolous pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. We hold that the imposition of sanctions was within the court’s discretion.

Conduct is frivolous and can be sanctioned under the court rule if "it is completely without merit * * * [or] it is undertaken * * * to harass or maliciously injure another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1], [2]). "In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues * * * the circumstances under which the conduct took place” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). In light of the fact that this petition was filed contemporaneously with another petition, by which the petitioner was seeking to restrain Elizabeth R. from gaining access to or controlling their mother’s assets, along with the other circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in concluding that appellants engaged in frivolous conduct with the intention to harass and maliciously injure Elizabeth R. (see, Matter of Rosenhain, 222 AD2d 745).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.