From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bruker v. Sullivan and Liapakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 2002
299 A.D.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2288, 2289, 2290, 2291, M-5700

November 21, 2002.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered December 22, 2000 and on or about April 30, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in two actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered January 25 and January 29, 2002, which denied plaintiff's motions to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

PRO SE, for plaintiff-appellant.

GLENN J. FUERTH, for defendants-respondents.

PRO SE, for plaintiff-appellant.

GLENN J. FUERTH, for defendant-respondent.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin, Marlow, JJ.


The actions arise out of a prior child protective proceeding that involved plaintiff's child (see Matter of Elianne M., 184 A.D.2d 98, lv dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 1067). In the first action plaintiff alleges that the law firm that acted as the child's attorney (see Matter of Elianne M., 196 A.D.2d 439) committed fraud and various other acts of wrongdoing that interfered with plaintiff's custody of the child; in the second action similar allegations are made against the child's original foster parent. Suffice it to say that the actions were properly dismissed for lack of evidence that defendants unlawfully withheld the child from plaintiff, or committed any torts against her. Plaintiff's grievance is with Family Court's finding of neglect and dispositional order that the child remain in foster care until her 18th birthday, from which an appeal by plaintiff was dismissed for failure to timely perfect (Matter of Elianne M., 236 A.D.2d 897, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 803). Plaintiff's subsequent motions, although characterized as ones to renew as well as reargue, were actually only to reargue, the denials of which are nonappealable. We have considered and rejected plaintiff's other arguments.

Motion seeking leave to enlarge record denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Bruker v. Sullivan and Liapakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 2002
299 A.D.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Bruker v. Sullivan and Liapakis

Case Details

Full title:STEPHANIE BRUKER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SULLIVAN AND LIAPAKIS, P.C., ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 21, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
749 N.Y.S.2d 711