At the outset of the trial, Connor and Cutting moved to dismiss the complaint on those grounds and also requested attorney’s fees and sanctions under court rules, alleging that the plaintiff’s counsel, Ross Eisenberg, engaged in frivolous conduct by proceeding without proper legal grounds.
The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss and held a hearing on the request for sanctions and attorney’s fees. Following the hearing, the court ordered Eisenberg to pay $10,000 in attorney’s fees to the defendants and $5,000 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. Eisenberg and Palm Avenue Hialeah Trust, a nonparty, appealed the order.
On October 29, 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in awarding sanctions and attorney’s fees, noting that courts may impose such penalties for conduct that is frivolous—meaning it is without merit, intended to delay litigation, or asserts false material facts. While the appellate court said the lower court could have explained the penalty amounts in more detail, it found the sums appropriate given Eisenberg’s conduct.
For mortgage professionals, this case is a clear reminder: when handling foreclosure actions, especially after a prior judgment, every procedural step must be followed. Failing to comply with court requirements can result in significant financial penalties for both attorneys and their clients.
This decision is not just about a single foreclosure or one attorney’s fees. It signals that courts expect strict adherence to foreclosure procedures and will hold parties accountable for frivolous litigation. For those working in mortgage servicing or foreclosure, compliance is essential to avoid costly mistakes and reputational risk.