From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Maples

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 25, 2001
286 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

September 25, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered August 26, 1999, which dismissed pro se plaintiff's complaint sua sponte and enjoined plaintiff from initiating any further litigation against defendant without prior court approval, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

PRO SE, for plaintiff-appellant.

Magda L. Cruz, for plaintiff-appellant.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Tom, Marlow, JJ.


The sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's complaint was a proper exercise of discretion in view of his many frivolous motions and repeated disregard of court orders (cf., Wehringer v. Brannigan, 232 A.D.2d 206, 207, appeal dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 980; Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 122-123). It was also a proper exercise of discretion to enjoin plaintiff from initiating any further litigation against defendant without prior court approval in order to prevent his further use of the courts as a means of harassing and embarrassing defendant (see, Matter of Sud v. Sud, 227 A.D.2d 319; Novel v. Salzberg, 253 A.D.2d 684, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 816, rearg denied 93 N.Y.2d 849, cert denied 527 U.S. 1007, reh denied 527 U.S. 1055; see also, 257 A.D.2d 53; Jones v. Trump, 96 Civ 2995 [SAS], 1997 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7324, 26-27, affd 1998 U.S. App LEXIS 23531, cert denied 527 U.S. 1003).

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


Summaries of

Jones v. Maples

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 25, 2001
286 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Jones v. Maples

Case Details

Full title:CHUCK JONES, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARLA MAPLES…

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

Date published: Sep 25, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 356

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Aarone-Beane

The sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's complaint was a proper exercise of discretion in view of his many…

McQuillan v. St. Vincent's Hosp

Plaintiff's fraud claims are also barred by the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213; 203[g]). The…