The Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed a ruling out of Philadelphia, upholding a $2.3 million verdict in a Dragonetti lawsuit that includes punitive damages against a Drexel Hill lawyer.

Mark S. Halpern of Halpern & Levy is on the hook for $1.75 million in punitive damages after a jury reached its verdict back in September 2016 over claims that he filed a frivolous lawsuit against a former Cozen O'Connor attorney. The plaintiff in the underlying case, Lynne Boghossian, was also hit with $300,000 in punitive damages.

In a published opinion filed Nov. 28, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Shelley Robins New's order from last year that upheld the verdict.

Halpern said he is planning to file a motion for reconsideration.

Among other issues raised, Halpern argued in his appeal that Robins New should have granted a continuance of the trial because Halpern was sick the morning trial began. The Superior Court said Robins New's denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. According to the opinion, Halpern provided a doctor's certification of his illness, but that was only for voir dire.

“Notably, his doctor did not certify that Halpern was unavailable for trial,” Judge Judith Olson wrote for the Superior Court. “The trial court found that these facts, combined with Halpern's past conduct in seeking to unnecessarily delay the proceedings, weighed against finding that continuance was warranted.”

In the underlying suit, Boghossian accused her brother-in-law, former Cozen O'Connor attorney John F. Brown, of conspiring to loot a family member's trust. Brown was previously married to Boghossian's sister, Lesley Brown.

According to Olson's opinion, the underlying case relates to an irrevocable trust set up by John Brown and Boghossian's aunt, Hilda Kilijian. After a dispute with Boghossian over certain stock certificates she and Boghossian held jointly, Kilijian placed the rest of her assets in the trust and designated that it be passed to Brown after her death.

In January 2009, Boghossian sued the Browns and Kilijian on claims including conversion and tortious interference. The suit accused the Browns of blackmail, extortion, slander, coercion, kidnapping and “conspiring to unduly influence” Kilijian, and made allegations about infidelity within the Browns' marriage, the complaint said.

In January 2013, a judge dismissed all the claims against the Browns, and the following year the state Superior Court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment for the trust, the memo said.

On appeal, Halpern also argued that the underlying suit was never actually terminated in the Browns' favor, which is required under the Dragonetti Act. He argued that he and Boghossian withdrew the claims after the Browns filed a motion for summary judgment because of a settlement, but the Superior Court said the parties never entered into a settlement agreement in the underlying case.

Halpern also raised arguments about the constitutionality of the Dragonetti Act, but Olson wrote that he waived that argument by failing to make the necessary filings. The court also said he waived arguments regarding the Browns' closing argument at trial, and an instance in which Robins New admonished Boghossian's lawyer at trial, because those issues were not raised in the trial court.

“We strongly disagree with the decision and its reasoning,” Halpern said. He said he plans to file a motion for reconsideration by an en banc panel of the Superior Court, and will appeal to the state Supreme Court if necessary.

Steven Angstreich of Weir & Partners, who represented Boghossian in the appeal, said he will also be seeking reconsideration en banc. “I'm very disappointed that the court made light of the errors,” he said.

James Beasley, who represents Brown, said, “I don't know why the Supreme Court would ever hear this.”