{"id":719,"date":"2025-03-18T11:45:39","date_gmt":"2025-03-18T15:45:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/?p=719"},"modified":"2025-03-18T11:45:39","modified_gmt":"2025-03-18T15:45:39","slug":"court-upholds-sanctions-for-frivolous-filing-of-notice-of-pendency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/2025\/03\/18\/court-upholds-sanctions-for-frivolous-filing-of-notice-of-pendency\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Upholds Sanctions for Frivolous Filing of Notice of Pendency"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Consumer Protection Restoration, LLC v. Hickory House Tenants Corp.<\/a><\/em>, the Second Department of the New York Appellate Division upheld a trial court\u2019s decision to impose sanctions and legal fees on the plaintiffs for filing a frivolous notice of pendency. The plaintiffs initially sought to foreclose on two mechanic\u2019s liens and recover damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the defendant, Hickory House Tenants Corp. (hereinafter \u201cHickory House\u201d). However, the Supreme Court of Rockland County had previously directed the expungement of the mechanic\u2019s liens under Lien Law \u00a7 39, ruling that they were willfully exaggerated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a notice of pendency against Hickory House\u2019s cooperative apartment complex in relation to their sole remaining claim for unjust enrichment. Hickory House moved to impose sanctions, arguing that the notice of pendency was frivolous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Second Department affirmed the lower court\u2019s ruling that the plaintiffs’ notice of pendency was frivolous and upheld the imposition of sanctions. The court reiterated that a notice of pendency is proper only when a plaintiff\u2019s claim directly affects the title, possession, use, or enjoyment of real property. In this case, the plaintiffs\u2019 unjust enrichment claim did not implicate a property interest in a manner that justified filing a notice of pendency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling underscores the judiciary\u2019s willingness to impose financial consequences on litigants who file a notice of pendency without a legitimate property interest claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jose A. Aquino<\/a> (@JoseAquinoEsq<\/a> on X) is a special counsel at Duane Morris LLP’s New York office, where he is a member of both the Construction Group<\/a> and of the Cuba Business Group<\/a>,  specializing in construction law, lien law, and government procurement law.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Duane Morris LLP or its individual attorneys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Consumer Protection Restoration, LLC v. Hickory House Tenants Corp., the Second Department of the New York Appellate Division upheld a trial court\u2019s decision to impose sanctions and legal fees on the plaintiffs for filing a frivolous notice of pendency. The plaintiffs initially sought to foreclose on two mechanic\u2019s liens and recover damages for breach of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Court Upholds Sanctions for Frivolous Filing of Notice of Pendency”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":221,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[88,593,84,837],"ppma_author":[699],"class_list":["post-719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-construction-law","tag-jose-a-aquino","tag-lien-law","tag-notice-of-pendency"],"authors":[{"term_id":699,"user_id":66,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jaaquino","display_name":"Jose A. Aquino","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2014\/07\/aquinojose-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/719","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/719\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=719"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}