From: ptsc Subject: Peter Letterese sanctioned for frivolous litigation Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:26:26 -0500 The well-known lunatic Peter Letterese, who has gone around with his loser lawyer Richard Marcus, was recently slapped with sanctions for filing motions "completely without merit in law." I don't know the rest of the history of this no doubt sordid excursion into Letterese's loony litigation. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/slips/10265.htm Letterese v Dashman 2001 NYSlipOp 10265 Decided on December 17, 2001 Appellate Division, Second Department This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on December 17, 2001 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARMENT Argued - November 15, 2001 HOWARD MILLER, J.P. SANDRA L. TOWNES STEPHEN G. CRANE BARRY A. COZIER, JJ. DECISION & ORDER 2000-07594 [*1]Peter Letterese, et al., appellants, v Daniel Dashman, respondent. Richard A. Marcus, New York, N.Y., for appellants. Daniel D. Dashman, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., respondent pro se. In an action to enjoin the defendant from releasing certain confidential information, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated July 21, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to impose a sanction upon them pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and imposed a sanction of $750. ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Contrary to the appellants' contention, the record amply supports the Supreme Court's conclusion that the postjudgment motion to compel the deposition of the defendant constituted frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR Part 130-1(c)(1) in that it was "completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing [*2]law" (22 NYCRR Part 130-1[c][1]; see, Mancini v Mancini, 269 AD2d 366; Walton v Markan, 262 AD2d 479). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction against the appellants (see, Antoine v Gulmi, 250 AD2d 558; see generally, Intercontinental Credit Corp. Div. of Pan Am. Trade Dev. Corp. v Roth, 78 NY2d 306). H. MILLER, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur. ENTER: James Edward Pelzer Clerk