Melnitzky v. Apple Bank for Savings
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 3, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff is enjoined from commencing any further litigation in the courts of the State of New York arising from or related to issues with [253] respect to his matrimonial action, including the ownership and/or distribution of property in connection therewith, and his representation with respect thereto, without prior leave of Supreme Court of the applicable county. The Clerks of Supreme Court, New York and Bronx counties, and the Clerk of this Court are directed to accept no filings from this plaintiff as to such matters without the prior leave of their respective courts.
Plaintiffs claim is premised on the contention that defendant allowed the contents of his safe deposit box to be removed by his ex-wife (the third-party defendant) and her attorney, and that defendant colluded with said attorney by taking no precautions to safeguard plaintiffs belongings, thus violating its fiduciary duty to him. All issues and claims raised herein that were or could have been addressed in plaintiffs matrimonial action, particularly regarding the inventory of safe deposit boxes, are barred (see generally Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185 [1981]). Additionally, the claim for conversion is time-barred (see CPLR 214 [3]).
In light of the continuous and vexatious nature of his litigation,
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
19 A.D.3d 252 (Melnitzky v. Apple Bank for Savings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.