Opinion
21 CIVIL 8397 (RA)
05-09-2022
CHRISTINE M. ARAMAN, Plaintiff, v. REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK; 237 105TH STREET LLC; REAL BROKER LLC; ALEX ARAMAN; BEVERLY ARAMAN; PAUL ARAMAN; SHIRLEY CABRERA; DR. SERGEI KALSOW MD PC; CHARLIE SAHADI; JONAHTAN GARDNER; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; NINA CARLOW ESQ.; AARON LEVY; MATHEW LEVY; ANNA ARAMAN; ANNA ARAMAN C/O OCTOLY; BARRY JANAY C/O RICK STEINER FELL & BENOWITZ LLP; BARRY JANAY C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF BARRY E. JANAY P.C., Defendants.
JUDGMENT
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated May 6, 2022, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court's November 9, 2021 order denied Plaintiff all relief and closed the case. Judgment is entered dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as frivolous. In her April 26 submission, Plaintiff indicated for the first time that she intended her November 19 submission to act not only as a reconsideration motion, but also as a notice of appeal. "A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision or orderbut before the entry of the judgment or order-is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry." Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2). Keeping in mind Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court construes Plaintiffs November 19 submission as a notice of appeal and treats it as filed on the date that the Clerk of Court entered judgment in this case. Plaintiff may appeal that judgment consistent with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She is reminded, however, of the Court's prior certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, such that in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Plaintiff has consented to electronic service of court documents.