Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Michael MELNITZKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. August URIBE, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered June 24, 2005, which granted defendants' motion to confirm the findings of the Special Referee, dated November 9, 2004; assessed the sum of $4,500 against plaintiff as sanctions for his frivolous conduct; and enjoined plaintiff from bringing any further actions as a pro se litigant against defendants or their current attorneys without first obtaining judicial approval from the court, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff is enjoined from commencing any further litigation in the courts of the State of New York arising from or related to issues with respect to his contractual agreement with Sotheby's and/or any of its employees or attorneys, without prior leave of Supreme Court of the applicable county. The Clerks of this Court and Supreme Court, New York and Bronx Counties are directed to accept no filings from this plaintiff as to such matters without the prior leave of their respective courts.
Plaintiff's actions for breach of contract, fraud and deceptive conduct, stemming from an exclusive agreement to provide conservation and restoration services to the Latin American painting department, were previously dismissed on the merits (Melnitzky v. Sotheby Parke Bernet, 300 A.D.2d 201, 750 N.Y.S.2d 859 [2002], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 510, 766 N.Y.S.2d 163, 798 N.E.2d 347 [2003]; Melnitzky v. Uribe, 18 A.D.3d 328, 794 N.Y.S.2d 647 [2005] ). Thus, the Special Referee properly limited the evidence at the sanctions hearing to the issue of whether plaintiff had acted frivolously in commencing a second action, and his conduct throughout the litigation. The report of the Special Referee was properly confirmed, since the findings contained therein are substantially supported by the record and the Referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility (see Kaplan v. Einy, 209 A.D.2d 248, 251, 618 N.Y.S.2d 777 [1994] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 05, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)