Opinion
No. 575 CA 22-00200
07-08-2022
S.P., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. M.P., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
S.P., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. VERA A. VENKOVA, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
S.P., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.
VERA A. VENKOVA, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Frank A. Sedita, III, J.), entered January 5, 2022. The order, inter alia, precluded plaintiff from filing any new application without leave of court or approval of an attorney.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff mother appeals from an order that effectively denied her requests for various relief and precluded her from filing any new application for legal relief without leave of court or approval of an attorney. Contrary to the mother's contention, her requests for relief were all without merit, and Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in placing restrictions on future filings. Although "[p]ublic policy mandates free access to the courts..., a party may forfeit that right if she or he abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will" (Ritchie v Ritchie, 184 A.D.3d 1113, 1117 [4th Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cangro v Marangos, 160 A.D.3d 580, 580 [1st Dept 2018], appeal dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 947 [2018]; Matter of Pavic v Djokic, 152 A.D.3d 696, 697 [2d Dept 2017]). The mother has made multiple motions for various relief, many of which are repetitive, and each motion is accompanied by voluminous and mostly irrelevant exhibits. When her requests for relief are denied, the mother ignores the court's ruling and continues making the same meritless arguments. Moreover, the mother is sending copies of her papers, which contain sensitive issues, to people who have no involvement at all in the case. We thus agree with the court that the mother" 'has abused the judicial process by engaging in meritless, frivolous or vexatious litigation'" (Ritchie, 184 A.D.3d at 1118; see Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 A.D.3d 487, 489 [2d Dept 2004]).