Biton v. Flushing Bank

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: January 23, 2019
• Docket: 2019 NYSlipOp 50070(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

Danielle Biton a/k/a Daniel Bitton, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Flushing Bank, Defendant, -and- HSBC Bank and Corporation Counsel of New York City, Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered June 19, 2018, which granted the motions of defendants HSBC Bank USA, N.A., sued herein as HSBC Bank, and The City of New York, sued herein as Corporation Counsel of New York City, to dismiss the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered June 19, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

The instant action was properly dismissed based upon the pro se plaintiff's violation of a prior court order requiring her to obtain judicial permission before commencing any "self-represented actions in the Civil Court of the City of New York without prior judicial approval" (Bitton v H.S.B.C., 39 Misc 3d 1238[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50923[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2013]; see Davey v Goodrich & Bendish, 118 AD3d 639 [2014]), an order warranted by plaintiff's continuous and vexatious litigation (see e.g. Beraka v Biton, 55 Misc 3d 133[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50444[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv dismissed 30 NY3d 1080 [2018]; Bitton v H.S.B.C., 53 Misc 3d 154[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51746[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]). Even were we to consider the merits, we would find that the complaint failed to state any legally cognizable cause of action.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 23, 2019