Opinion
9334 9335 9336 Index 153731/18
05-16-2019
Joan C. Lipin, appellant pro se. Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP, New York (Lauren J. Pincus of counsel), for respondents.
Joan C. Lipin, appellant pro se. Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP, New York (Lauren J. Pincus of counsel), for respondents.
Gische, J.P., Kahn, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2019, which, inter alia, denied pro se defendant Joan C. Lipin's cross motion to dismiss plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, her motion to dismiss the action with prejudice, and her motion for contempt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court denied defendant's motions as "incomprehensible and lacking any basis in law or fact," and defendant presents no reason to disturb that determination on appeal. The appeal is, in large part, an apparent effort to relitigate failed claims asserted by defendant, as the plaintiff, in Lipin v. Danske Bank , 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 32694(U), 2014 WL 5302246 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2014), a case whose dismissal we affirmed in 2016 ( Lipin v. Hunt , 137 A.D.3d 518, 28 N.Y.S.3d 15 [1st Dept. 2016], appeal dismissed 27 N.Y.3d 1053, 33 N.Y.S.3d 873, 53 N.E.3d 752 [2016] ).
We reject defendant's stated effort to shoehorn an alleged appeal from a January 2, 2019 order in Lipin v. Danske Bank into this appeal. This action is timely (see CPLR 5014[1] ). Defendant failed to present grounds for holding any attorney in contempt or in violation of Judiciary Law § 487. To the extent defendant purports to offer factual support for arguments, she cites only her own prior, unproven allegations.
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them without merit.