Man, that ruling is scathing. Judge has had it with these two-bit lawyers.

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.” (The court even went so far as to caution that the “arguments were borderline frivolous even the first time defendants made them.” […]) […] 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.

This just goes on and on. The judge devotes like eight pages to taking apart defendants’ counsel. The next section is, amusingly, titled “Arguments Defendants Raise for the First Time.”