Novel v. Salzberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Novel v. Salzberg

253 A.D.2d 684, 677 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9615

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 684 (Novel v. Salzberg) 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

Novel v. Salzberg, 253 A.D.2d 684, 677 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about [685]*685October 16, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata and denied her application to enjoin plaintiff pro se from bringing further suits against defendant, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of enjoining plaintiff from bringing further lawsuits pro se against this defendant without prior judicial approval, and otherwise affirmed, with costs payable to defendant.

The motion court properly dismissed the instant action, the third brought by plaintiff pro se against defendant for the same alleged wrong, as precluded by prior judicial determinations. However, under the circumstances, it appears that the threat of sanctions will not deter this plaintiff’s repetitive litigation, and we modify accordingly (see, Spremo v Babchik, 155 Misc 2d 796, mod 216 AD2d 382, lv denied 86 NY2d 709, cert denied 516 US 1161). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about [685]*685October 16, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata and denied her application to enjoin plaintiff pro se from bringing further suits against defendant, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of enjoining plaintiff from bringing further lawsuits pro se against this defendant without prior judicial approval, and otherwise affirmed, with costs payable to defendant.

The motion court properly dismissed the instant action, the third brought by plaintiff pro se against defendant for the same alleged wrong, as precluded by prior judicial determinations. However, under the circumstances, it appears that the threat of sanctions will not deter this plaintiff’s repetitive litigation, and we modify accordingly (see, Spremo v Babchik, 155 Misc 2d 796, mod 216 AD2d 382, lv denied 86 NY2d 709, cert denied 516 US 1161). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 684, 677 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novel-v-salzberg-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack