Harry v. Lagomarsine

3 Citing cases

  1. Harvin v. Cheney

    3:23cv328 (MPS) (D. Conn. May. 7, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    Nor is there any evidence that Plaintiff has engaged in similar abuse after the Court's warning. ECF No. 62; see Harry v. Lagomarsine, No. 18-cv-1822, 2019 WL 1177718, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. March 13, 2019) (noting dismissals after warning). Under these circumstances, I cannot make a finding by clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff so willfully or intentionally abused the litigation process that I should go so far as dismissing the case.

  2. James v. Kuhnle

    19-CV-1175 (KAM) (JMW) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 7, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Courts have not hesitated to dismiss a pro se Plaintiff's claims with prejudice based on such serious threats, which have no place in a civilized society, to say nothing of a federal court. See, e.g., Harry v. Lagomarsine, 2019 WL 1177718, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019) (threats to sexually assault and kill defense counsel); Phelan v. Karandy, 2012 WL 2235125, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 15, 2012) (threats against judge); Nelson v. Eaves, 140 F.Supp.2d 319, 319-320 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (Chin, J.) (threatening and sexually graphic letters to defense counsel).

  3. Lafferty v. Jones

    336 Conn. 332 (Conn. 2020)   Cited 25 times
    Granting petition to file expedited public interest appeal, pursuant to § 52-265a, from trial court's sanction revoking defendants’ opportunity to pursue special motion to dismiss under § 52-196a

    Harassing and intimidating counsel so that they withdraw from litigating a case is beyond cavil; it is an unfair and inappropriate litigation strategy that strikes at the core of our system. See Harry v. Lagomarsine , Docket No. 18-CV-1822 (BMC) (LB), 2019 WL 1177718, *3 (E.D.N.Y. March 13, 2019) (explaining how threats to opposing counsel "effected a permanent change in [the] defendants’ representation"); Kalwasinski v. Ryan , supra, 2007 WL 2743434, at *3 ("[b]y deliberately and intentionally participating in making threats of physical harm against parties and witnesses in his case, he has engaged in conduct that he should have known would threaten a fair decision in this matter"). We recognize that there is a place for strong advocacy in litigation, but language evoking threats of physical harm is not tolerable.