SHELLY HOD, ETC., ap, v. ORCHARD FIELDS, LLC, res — The plaintiff having appealed to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 21, 2012, this Court having noticed the matter for a CAMP conference on November 26, 2012, and the respondent's counsel as well as a claims representative of the insurance carrier for the respondent having failed to appear at the conference without excuse. By dated December 6, 2012, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions as the Court may deem appropriate pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(b)(2) upon Brand, Glick & Brand, P. C., counsel for the respondent.

Now, upon the and the papers filed in response thereto, it is

ORDERED that within 20 days of service upon it of a copy of this decision and , Brand, Glick & Brand, P. C., counsel for the respondent, is directed to pay a sanction in the sum of $250 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, is directed to serve counsel for the parties with a copy of this decision and by regular mail; and it is further,

ORDERED that within 10 days after payment of the sanction, Brand, Glick & Brand, P. C., counsel for the respondent, shall file proof of payment with the Clerk of this Court.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(b) (2), "[a]ny attorney or party who, without good cause, fails to appear for a regularly scheduled preargument conference . . . shall be subject to the imposition of such costs and/or sanctions as the [C]ourt may direct." Moreover, the designated Judicial Hearing Officer at the CAMP conference directed all counsel to attend with clients, which included a claims representative for the respondent's insurance carrier. Brand, Glick & Brand, P.C., counsel for the respondent, failed to appear and to insure that a claims representative for the respondent's insurance carrier appear for a regularly scheduled CAMP conference, without good cause. Accordingly, we determine that a sanction in the amount set forth above is appropriate (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[b][2]).

DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.