Opinion
No. 2022-08730 Index No. 169/22
12-13-2023
Domenico Monaco, etc., appellant, v. Benjamin Van Meerendonk, et al., respondents.
Domenico Monaco, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
Domenico Monaco, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, BARRY E. WARHIT, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for the judicial dissolution of a closely held corporation, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), dated September 22, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the cross-motion of Benjamin Van Meerendonk and 82 Degraw Associates, Inc., which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition and for certain injunctive relief to the extent of enjoining the petitioner from commencing any further pro se actions or proceedings against them, or any entity affiliated with them, without prior leave of the court.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the cross-motion of Benjamin Van Meerendonk and 82 Degraw Associates, Inc., which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the petition on the ground of res judicata (see Brody v RBC Mtge. Co., 215 A.D.3d 724, 726; Matter of Ram v Hershowitz, 76 A.D.3d 1022, 1023; see also Monaco v Van Meerendonk, 190 A.D.3d 968, 968-969).
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents' cross-motion which was for certain injunctive relief to the extent of enjoining the petitioner from commencing any further pro se actions or proceedings against them, or any entity affiliated with them, without prior leave of the court. "[W]hile public policy mandates free access to the courts, a party may forfeit that right[, as here,] if that party abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will" (Caesar v HSBC Bank USA, NA, 200 A.D.3d 842, 843 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Ram v Hershowitz, 76 A.D.3d at 1022-1023).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the petitioner's remaining contentions.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, WARHIT and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.