Opinion
2021-06982 Index 61658/17
12-15-2021
Francis M. Caesar, et al., appellants, v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, etc., et al., respondents.
Francis M. Caesar, Chappaqua, NY, appellant pro se and for appellant Lisa N. Caesar. Ballard Spahr LLP, New York, NY (Jacquelyn Schell of counsel), for respondent HSBC Bank USA, NA. Sills Cummis & Gross P.C., New York, NY (Lori K. Sapir and Joshua N. Howley of counsel), for respondent Citibank, NA.
Francis M. Caesar, Chappaqua, NY, appellant pro se and for appellant Lisa N. Caesar.
Ballard Spahr LLP, New York, NY (Jacquelyn Schell of counsel), for respondent HSBC Bank USA, NA.
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C., New York, NY (Lori K. Sapir and Joshua N. Howley of counsel), for respondent Citibank, NA.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, LARA J. GENOVESI, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record a mortgage, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sam D. Walker, J.), dated January 31, 2018. The order (1) granted those branches of the motion of the defendant HSBC Bank USA, NA which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and for sanctions and certain injunctive relief to the extent of enjoining the plaintiffs from commencing any further action that has any relation to this matter without prior leave of the court, and (2) granted the separate motion of the defendant Citibank, NA pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant HSBC Bank USA, NA which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343, 347; O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357; Manko v Aetna Health, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 814). The court also properly granted the separate motion of the defendant Citibank, NA (hereinafter Citibank) pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The complaint sought no relief against Citibank and it was not a necessary party to the action (see Roman v Emigrant Sav. Bank-Brooklyn/Queens, 111 A.D.3d 692; Sorbello v Birchez Assoc., LLC, 61 A.D.3d 1225, 1226).
Furthermore, while public policy mandates free access to the courts, "a party may forfeit that right if [that party] abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will" (Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 A.D.3d 487, 489; see Panagoulopoulos v Carlos Ortiz Jr. MD, P.C., 194 A.D.3d 728, 730; Breytman v Schechter, 101 A.D.3d 783, 785). Here, the record reflects that the plaintiffs abused the judicial process through vexatious litigation. Under the circumstances, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination to enjoin the plaintiffs from commencing any further action that has any relation to this matter without prior leave of the court (see Breytman v Schechter, 101 A.D.3d at 785; Matter of Simpson v Ptaszynska, 41 A.D.3d 607, 608; Matter of Shreve v Shreve, 229 A.D.2d 1005, 1006).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, GENOVESI and FORD, JJ., concur.