Which situation describes a frivolous claim or contentions?

• A. Advancing a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law and fact.
• B. Successfully arguing a well-supported motion.
• C. Filing a claim that has a strong basis in law and fact.
• D. Delaying a case for strategic reasons with a substantial purpose.

Answer: (A)

Frivolous contentions are claims or defenses that have no reasonable basis in law or fact and are pursued without a legitimate purpose—often to harass or delay the proceeding. In New York, courts can sanction such conduct under CPLR 130-1.1, which targets claims or tactics that are unwarranted by existing law or by the facts known, or pursued for improper purposes.

So the situation described—advancing a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law and fact—fits the definition of a frivolous contention because it lacks factual and legal grounding. The other scenarios describe legitimate, well-supported positions or actions intended to manage the case, not frivolous ones.