CASE#: C-2012-0786 04/23/2014 RECORD ON APPEAL Image: 170 of 191 8 “ Ata motion term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the County of Oswego, at the Oswego County Courthouse, Oswego, New York, on the 23rd day of August, 2012. PRESENT: HONORABLE NORMAN W. SEITER, Ss Justice Presiding STATE OF NEW YORK ae SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF OSWEGO A Ola MARK D. PLUMLEY and TINA A. PLUMLEY, ORE Plaintiffs, Index No, 2012-0786 ee RILNo. 37-12-0238 ERIE BOULEVARD HYDROPOWER, L-P., eee ieee Fi Defendant, Justice of Supreme Court Defendant Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (“Erie”), having moved the Court for an Order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, imposing sanctions and awarding Erie its costs and reasonable attomeys* fees, and for an Order dismissing the Plaintiffs” Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, and on the merits, or in the alternative, an Order, pursuant to CPLR R 3211(), treating Erie’s motion as one for summary judgment and, upon such treatment, granting Erie's motion and) “Motion”), and the Court having read and considered the Notice of Motion dated May 29, 2012, the Affirmation of Douglas J. Nash, Esq., affirmed on May 29, 2012, with exhibits thereto, the Affirmation of John P. Langan, Esq., affirmed on May 25, 2012, submitted in support of the Motion, and the Affirmation of John D. Conners, Esq., affirmed on August 10, 2012, and the Affidavit of Mark D. Plumley and Tina A. Plumley, with exhibits thereto, submitted in ‘opposition to the Motion, and the Reply Affirmation of Douglas J. Nash, Esq., affirmed on aosm 167 issing Plaintiffs? Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, and on the merits (the -CASE#: C-2012-0786 04/23/2014 RECORD ON APPEAL Image: 171 of 191 August 17, 2012, with exhibits thereto, submitted in further support of the Motion, and the Court having considered the oral arguments made by Erie, through its counsel, and by the Plumleys, through their counsel, on the 23rd day of August, 2012, as reflected in the attached hearing transcrip, it is hereby: ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: a ‘The Motion is granted to the extent that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and on the merits; and 2. ‘The Motion is denied to the extent that sanctions will not be imposed on the Plumleys at this time, but that sanctions will be imposed upon the Plumleys if they make any further claim to damages with respect to, 1 or claim any estate or interest in, or a right of way through the property subject to the Complaint. DATED: _Septenber J, 2012 ‘Oswego, New York ENTER: Hon. Norman W. Seiter, Jr. Justice of the Supreme Court 005031 168