- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Etienne v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc.
- Docket
- 2024-13449
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03293
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
This personal injury action arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in April 2023 on Sunrise Highway in Nassau County. The plaintiffs, Darick Sephano Etienne and others, were passengers in a car owned and operated by defendant Dervens Jeanty when it collided with a van owned by Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc. and operated by Peter G. Bates, a Pepsi employee. In October 2023, the plaintiffs commenced the action asserting negligence causes of action against all defendants.
In January 2024, the Pepsi defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against them, and also moved pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to impose costs and sanctions upon the plaintiffs for alleged frivolous conduct. Before the motions were decided, the parties executed a stipulation discontinuing the action with prejudice. The Supreme Court, Kings County then addressed only the sanctions motion, granting it solely to the extent of awarding the Pepsi defendants statutory costs of their motion, but declining to award the full sanctions they sought. The Pepsi defendants appealed, seeking greater sanctions.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court’s order, with costs to the plaintiffs. The court first confirmed that a voluntary discontinuance does not divest the court of jurisdiction to address sanctions for pre-discontinuance conduct, citing 13 E. 124 LLC v. J & M Realty Servs. Corp., 222 AD3d 446, and Destino v. Q Mgt. Props., LLC, 237 AD3d 1162.
On the merits of the sanctions request, the court applied the standard under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, which authorizes courts to award costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from “frivolous conduct.” The court noted that the party seeking sanctions bears the burden of demonstrating that the opponent’s conduct was frivolous within the meaning of the rule, citing Contreras v. Jimmy’s Auto Top, 242 AD3d 698, and Stone Mtn. Holdings, LLC v. Spitzer, 119 AD3d 548. The court found that the Pepsi defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs had engaged in frivolous conduct sufficient to warrant sanctions beyond the statutory costs already awarded.
Takeaways
This decision provides useful guidance on the standard for obtaining sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 in the aftermath of a voluntary discontinuance. While courts retain jurisdiction to address sanctions even after a case is discontinued, the burden remains on the party seeking sanctions to demonstrate that the opposing party’s conduct was truly frivolous — not merely unsuccessful or ill-advised.
The rule defines frivolous conduct to include actions that are completely without merit in law, undertaken primarily to delay or harass, or that assert material factual statements that are false. The Pepsi defendants apparently argued that bringing the action against them was itself frivolous, but the court found insufficient evidence to support that characterization. A party’s decision to discontinue an action does not automatically establish that the original claims were frivolous.
Practitioners should also note the distinction between statutory costs — which are relatively modest and routinely awarded to prevailing parties — and the discretionary sanctions available under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. The Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion by awarding only the lower tier of costs available.
Why It Matters
This case addresses a recurring tactical question in personal injury litigation: when a plaintiff voluntarily discontinues a case, can the defendant obtain sanctions for the prosecution of what it views as a frivolous claim? The answer, as this case confirms, is that sanctions remain available but are not easily obtained. The mere fact that a plaintiff chose to discontinue rather than litigate to judgment does not create a presumption of frivolous conduct.
For defendants in personal injury actions, the decision counsels caution before investing resources in sanctions motions. Unless the evidence clearly establishes that the action was completely without merit or was maintained for improper purposes, a sanctions motion may yield only statutory costs — a modest recovery relative to the expense of the motion itself. The decision reinforces that New York courts treat sanctions as an exception rather than the rule, reserving meaningful penalties for genuinely abusive litigation conduct.