| Badillo v Badillo |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03681 [62 AD3d 635] |
| May 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Maureen Badillo, Appellant, v William Badillo,Respondent. |
—[*1] Sarisohn Law Partners, LLP, Commack, N.Y. (Floyd Sarisohn and Marvin Waxner ofcounsel), for respondent.
In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, SuffolkCounty (Bivona, J.), dated June 11, 2008, which directed the plaintiff to pay the defendant thesum of $2,000 as a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the sanction is vacated.
Under the circumstances herein, the plaintiff did not engage in sanctionable conduct byopposing the defendant's motion, inter alia, to vacate a portion of a prior support order(see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Rennie-Otote v Otote, 15 AD3d 380, 381 [2005]; Hamilton v Cordero, 10 AD3d702, 703 [2004]; Stow v Stow, 262 AD2d 550, 551 [1999]; see also Arciniega v Arciniega, 48AD3d 607 [2008]). Moreover, the Supreme Court did not follow the proper procedure forimposing a sanction, since it failed to specify in a written decision the conduct upon which theaward was based, the reasons why it found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons thesanction was fixed in the sum indicated (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.2; Rennie-Otote vOtote, 15 AD3d at 381; Hamilton v Cordero, 10 AD3d at 703; Miller vDeCongilio, 269 AD2d 504 [2000]; Gossett v Firestar Affiliates, 224 AD2d 487[1996]).
The plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court improperly denied her request for sanctionsagainst the defendant is not properly before this Court (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]; Kane v Triborough Bridge & TunnelAuth., 40 AD3d 1040, 1041-1042 [2007]; Jandru Mats v Riteway AV Corp., 1 AD3d 565, 566 [2003];Telemark Constr. v Fleetwood & Assoc., 236 AD2d 462 [1997]; see also Matter of Mercury Ins. Group vOcana, 46 AD3d 561, 562 [2007]). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Florio and Belen, JJ.,concur.