Weisburst v. Dreifus

The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant’s underlying motion for an emergency stay contained “false charges [against plaintiff] that were expressed by means of a tortured and very partial rendering of the facts that can only have been deliberately crafted to mislead” and was therefore frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see e.g. Rogovin v Rogovin, 27 AD3d 233 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.