The plaintiffs then moved to compel Pryor Cashman to pay the attorney fees they incurred in opposing the firm's second motion for leave to appeal. The plaintiffs argued that the second motion introduced no new arguments or facts and was frivolous.
The First Department agreed.
"The motion by defendants-appellants for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was their second motion seeking identical relief, and insofar as the denial of the first motion made it clear that their arguments were without merit and unavailing, the second motion, raising substantially identical arguments, was therefore completely without merit in law, could not be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and was thus frivolous," the panel wrote.
Cooley partner Alan Levine, who was hired to represent Pryor Cashman in August, declined to comment on the decision.
Pryor Cashman founding partner Gideon Cashman, who previously led the firm's defense, could not be reached.
Schulte Roth & Zabel partner Ronald Richman, who represents the plaintiffs, also could not be reached.
@|Brendan Pierson can be contacted at bpierson@alm.com.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
-
RD Legal Funding
The courts tend to come down pretty hard on people who waste the time and resources of the system on things that turn out to be false. People forget even though the system is public it is paid for with taxpayer money and given the current economic times, there is pressure to make sure the money is being used effectively. I assume that is part of the reason for the harsh penalty.
Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
Reader Comments