Matter of Kepley v. Loeb
This text of Matter of Kepley v. Loeb (Matter of Kepley v. Loeb) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
Matter of Kepley v Loeb
2026 NY Slip Op 02453
April 23, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Elisabeth Kepley Also Known as Frances Lehman Loeb, Petitioner-Appellant,
v
John Loeb Jr., et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026
Index No. 154266/25|Appeal No. 6470|Case No. 2025-06781|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.
Elizabeth Kepley, appellant pro se.
Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin & Lever, LLP, White Plains (John C. Re of counsel), for John Loeb respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner's request for leave to move pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a)(1) and (3) to vacate the order, same court and Justice, dated September 19, 2025, dismissing the complaint, and for leave to file additional papers on the underlying motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying approval for petitioner to file additional papers in support of her petition, which approval was required by the previous order dismissing the petition, based on petitioner's prior abuse of the judicial process and initiation of meritless litigation. The additional papers which petitioner proposed to submit were irrelevant to the issues determined by the court in the order granting the motion to dismiss (see Summit Solomon & Feldesman v Lacher, 212 AD2d 487, 487 [1st Dept 1995]).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 23, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI