The judgement really is quite breathtaking with regards to rebuking Trump’s lawyers for their conduct. It’s not a question of “oops…we didn’t mean it” excuses…they really pushed the boundaries to the point where the judge had no other choice but to sanction them.
In response to both OAG’s request for a preliminary injunction and to defendants” motions to
dismiss, this Court rejected every one of the aforementioned arguments. In rejecting such
arguments for the second time, this Court cautioned that “sophisticated counsel should have
known better.” However, the Court declined to impose sanctions, believing it had “made its point.”Apparently, the point was not received.
One would not know from reading defendants’ papers that this Court has already twice ruled
against these arguments, called them frivolous, and twice been affirmed by the First Department.Defendants’ conduct in reiterating these frivolous arguments is egregious. We are way beyond
the point of “sophisticated counsel should have known better”; we are at the point of intentional
and blatant disregard of controlling authority and law of the case. This Court emphatically
rejected these arguments, as did the First Department. Defendants’ repetition of them here is
indefensible.
