You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED...

PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AND LIMITS ON PLAINTIFF’S ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN FUTURE VEXATIOUS LITIGATION PROPERLY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s pro se legal malpractice action and properly limited plaintiff’s ability to file additional motions:

“Public policy generally mandates free access to the courts” … . Although a pro se litigant is afforded ” some latitude,'” he or she is not entitled to rights greater than any other litigant and may not disregard court rules or deprive an adversary of rights normally enjoyed by an opposing party … . Accordingly, “when a litigant is abusing the judicial process by harassing individuals solely out of ill will or spite, equity may enjoin such vexatious litigation” … . Here, the plaintiff’s pattern of vexatious and duplicative motion practice warranted the modest limitation of directing the plaintiff to bring future motions via order to show cause … . Strujan v Kaufman & Kahn, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 00630, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

You might also like
HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY CONSTITUTE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
AN INSPECTION OF THE BLACKTOP FIVE TO SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED IN A HOLE AND FELL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S AFFIRMATION STATING HE NEVER RECEIVED THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS NOT REBUTTED BY PLAINTIFF; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTION AND THE RESULTING JUDGMENT WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Motion to Amend Pleadings/Motion for Additional Depositions
INSURER FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE OF THE UNDERLYING AUTO LIABILITY POLICY REQUIRED BY ITS UMBRELLA POLICY, UMBRELLA POLICY REFORMED TO RESTORE THE RESULTING GAP IN COVERAGE.
Certification Order Requiring Filing of Note of Issue in 70, Rather than 90, Days Could Not Be Basis of Dismissal
PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).
ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEREFORE LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED UNLOADING A TRUCK, HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON... CITY’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A CITY BUS DRIVER WAS BASED...