Grant v. FrankGrant v. Frank
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs.
“A court may award a party ‘costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney‘s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct’ ” (Board of Mgrs. of Foundry at Washington Park Condominium v Foundry Dev. Co., Inc., 142 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2016], quoting
22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a] ). However,22 NYCRR 130-1.1 provides that an award of costs or the imposition of sanctions may be made only “after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d] ; see Oppedisano v Oppedisano, 138 AD3d 1080, 1080 [2016]). Here, since the defendant sought an award of attorney‘s fees pursuant toDomestic Relations Law § 237 (a) , and not sanctions against the plaintiff pursuant to22 NYCRR 130-1.1 , the Supreme Court erred in failing to provide the plaintiff with a reasonable opportunity to be heard before it, sua sponte, awarded the defendant costs, including attorney‘s fees, pursuant to22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a) (see Hester v Hester, 121 AD3d 645, 646 [2014]; Matter of Dempsey v Arreglado, 95 AD3d 1388, 1391 [2012]; Landes v Landes, 248 AD2d 268, 269 [1998]; cf. Matter of Ruth S. [Sharon S.], 125 AD3d 978, 980 [2015]).
The plaintiff‘s remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.
Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.