Melnitzky v. Apple Bank for Savings

19 A.D.3d 252, 797 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7019
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 252 (Melnitzky v. Apple Bank for Savings) 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
Melnitzky v. Apple Bank for Savings, 19 A.D.3d 252, 797 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

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]*253respect 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,

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

Related

Svatovic v. Shabot
2024 NY Slip Op 02266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Shahid v. Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council, Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 1659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Maki v. Bassett Healthcare
141 A.D.3d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Banushi v. Law Office of Scott W. Epstein
110 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v. APP International Finance Co.
41 A.D.3d 25 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Melnitzky v. HSBC Bank USA
33 A.D.3d 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Robert v. O'Meara
28 A.D.3d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Melnitzky v. Melnitzky
22 A.D.3d 298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A.D.3d 252, 797 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melnitzky-v-apple-bank-for-savings-nyappdiv-2005.