At page 596 raised, or could have been raised, on numerous prior occasions (see, Duffy v Holt-Harris, 159 AD2d 542, appeal dismissed 76 NY2d 772, Iv dismissed 90 NY2d 925,…3 citing cases
- Strujan v. Glencord Bldg. Corp., 137 A.D.3d 1252 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedHere, given the plaintiffs history of interposing duplicative motions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by imposing the modest limitation of requiring the plaintiff to make any further applications for relief by order…
- Adefunke A. v. Adeniyi A., 36 Misc. 3d 699 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2012).publishedF Given the mandate of Family Court Act § 216-c, the court must exercise its own inherent authority to prevent abuse of the judicial process (Shreve, 229 AD2d at 1006 ; Matter of Manwani, 286 AD2d at 768 ; Duffy v Holt-Harris, 260 AD2d 595…
- Reiss v. Giraldo, 77 A.D.3d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).publishedHere, considering that the father, who was seeking visitation rights, refused to give his home address, completely failed to cooperate with a court-ordered investigation by the Administration for Children’s Services, and disrupted the cour…
At page 595 �In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief under 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.),…1 citing case
- Baker v. Baker, 83 A.D.3d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).publishedAllison v Allison, 60 AD3d 711, 711 [2009]; Duffy v Holt-Harris, 260 AD2d 595, 595-596 [1999]).
v.
John E. Holt-Harris, Jr., as Chairman of the New York State Board of Law Examiners
—In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief under 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated April 24, 1998, which denied his motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3), to vacate “the final judgment” and granted the defendants’ cross motion to the extent of precluding him from making any further motions before the Supreme- Court in this action without prior approval by that court.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The issues raised by the plaintiff on this appeal have been[*596] raised, or could have been raised, on numerous prior occasions (see, Duffy v Holt-Harris, 159 AD2d 542, appeal dismissed 76 NY2d 772, Iv dismissed 90 NY2d 925, rearg denied 91 NY2d 867; Duffy v Holt-Harris, 198 AD2d 326, Iv dismissed 83 NY2d 801; Duffy v Holt-Harris, 89 NY2d 962, rearg denied 90 NY2d 845). Under the circumstances, further review is barred by the doctrine of the law of the case (see, 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, Appeals in General § 70:424, at 456).
Furthermore, given the plaintiffs history of engaging in frivolous litigation, the Supreme Court properly enjoined him from making any further motions in this action in the absence of prior approval by the court (see, Braten v Finkelstein, 235 AD2d 513). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.