Jones v. Maples

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Maples

286 A.D.2d 639, 731 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8870

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 25, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 639 (Jones v. Maples) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Maples, 286 A.D.2d 639, 731 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered August 26, 1999, which dismissed pro se plaintiffs complaint sua sponte and enjoined plaintiff from initiating any further litigation against defendant without prior court approval, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The sua sponte dismissal of plaintiffs complaint was a proper exercise of discretion in view of his many frivolous motions and repeated disregard of court orders (cf., Wehringer v Brannigan, 232 AD2d 206, 207, appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 980; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123). It was also a proper exercise of discretion to enjoin plaintiff from initiating any further litigation against defendant without prior court approval in order to prevent his further use of the courts as a means of harassing and embarrassing defendant (see, Matter of Sud v Sud, 227 AD2d 319; Novel v Salzberg, 253 AD2d 684, lv denied 92 NY2d 816, rearg denied 93 NY2d 849, cert denied 527 US 1007, reh denied 527 US 1055; see also, Jones v Maples, 257 AD2d 53; Jones v Trump, 1997 WL 277375, *8-9, 1997 US Dist LEXIS 7324, *26-27 [SD NY, May 27, 1997, 96 Civ 2995 (SAS)], affd 1998 US App LEXIS 23531 [2d Cir, Sept. 21, 1998], cert denied 527 US 1003). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mar-low, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered August 26, 1999, which dismissed pro se plaintiffs complaint sua sponte and enjoined plaintiff from initiating any further litigation against defendant without prior court approval, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The sua sponte dismissal of plaintiffs complaint was a proper exercise of discretion in view of his many frivolous motions and repeated disregard of court orders (cf., Wehringer v Brannigan, 232 AD2d 206, 207, appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 980; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123). It was also a proper exercise of discretion to enjoin plaintiff from initiating any further litigation against defendant without prior court approval in order to prevent his further use of the courts as a means of harassing and embarrassing defendant (see, Matter of Sud v Sud, 227 AD2d 319; Novel v Salzberg, 253 AD2d 684, lv denied 92 NY2d 816, rearg denied 93 NY2d 849, cert denied 527 US 1007, reh denied 527 US 1055; see also, Jones v Maples, 257 AD2d 53; Jones v Trump, 1997 WL 277375, *8-9, 1997 US Dist LEXIS 7324, *26-27 [SD NY, May 27, 1997, 96 Civ 2995 (SAS)], affd 1998 US App LEXIS 23531 [2d Cir, Sept. 21, 1998], cert denied 527 US 1003). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mar-low, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 639, 731 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-maples-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack