Robert G. Smith, PLLC - divorce
212-499-0940
  • Home
  • About Robert G. Smith
  • Practice Areas
    • Family Law Overview
    • High Net Worth Divorce
    • Child Custody & Support
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About Robert G. Smith
  • Client Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • X Close

"I recommend Robert Smith as an expert and very talented lawyer without reservation." ~ JY

A Fraud Charge Requires A Material Fact, Scienter And Reliance. The Lawyer’s Failure Of Proof Resulted In Monetary Sanctions

On Behalf of Robert G. Smith, PLLC | Jun 30, 2016 | Uncategorized

    In Yeun-Ah Choi v. Shoshan, 136 AD3d 506 (1st Dept. 2016) the wife sued for divorce. The husband’s divorce attorney Walter Bottger, found by the divorce court and the appellate court to be experienced and qualified, allowed his client to enter into a settlement agreement wherein he agreed to pay wife’s reasonable interim counsel fees. According to the published court opinion on appeal, the husband later moved in court to set aside the settlement agreement, alleging that it was the result of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct or that to enforce stipulation would have been unjust or inequitable or have permitted wife to gain unconscionable advantage. The trial court denied the husband’s motion to set aside the settlement agreement, and the panel of Appellate Division judges affirmed that finding. The appellate court stated: “counsel’s claim that he had been “misled” into entering the stipulation was properly rejected, given counsel’s significant legal experience, and the fact that the wife never made any representation in the stipulation regarding future increases in her counsel’s average monthly legal fees * * * ” The appellate court did not stop there. It also affirmed the trial court’s award of monetary sanctions for making the motion to set aside the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the New York there is a New York court rule which bars conduct defined as “frivolous” [22 NYCRR § 130-1.1(c)(1)].   The appellate court stated that the “husband’s counsel had not been misled into entering into the stipulation and that wife never made representation regarding future increases in her counsel’s average monthly legal fees.  The husband’s conduct was frivolous and warranted sanctions because the motion to vacate stipulation was not based on good-faith argument that was ultimately found to be unpersuasive, and because there was no legal merit to husband’s motion.

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn

    Recent Posts

    • How can you gather evidence of parental alienation?
    • Valuing and dividing an IP asset in your divorce
    • How to prepare for your custody trial
    • Tips for divorcees in light of proposed tax increases
    • Will a parenting coordinator benefit your family?

    Categories

    • Child Custody (60)
    • Child Custody & Support Disputes (25)
    • Child Support (40)
    • Divorces Involving Family Businesses (15)
    • High Asset Divorce (49)
    • High Net-worth Divorce (28)
    • Protecting Your Assets (13)
    • Spousal Support (8)
    • Tax Considerations In Divorce (13)
    • Uncategorized (13)

    Archives

    Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed
    FindLaw Network

    Get The Help You need

    If you would like to talk with me, call my office in Manhattan at
    212-499-0940 or contact me online.
    Email us today
    Robert G. Smith, PLLC
    950 Third Ave., 11th Floor
    New York, NY 10022
    ROBERT G. SMITH, PLLC
    Phone: 212-499-0940
    Fax: 212-499-9091
    New York Law Office Map
    Review Us
    • Follow
    • Follow

    © 2022 Robert G. Smith, PLLC • All Rights Reserved

    Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters

    *AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ fall into two categories — legal ability and general ethical standards.