PANTOJA v. ROSARIO (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Veronica G. Hummel, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2025, which dismissed the complaint in the Rosario Action for failure to obtain leave of court prior to commencing further litigation, without prejudice to recommencement after obtaining such leave, unanimously affirmed, with costs.  Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 6, 2025, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as moot, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Order, same court, (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered on or about March 24, 2025, which denied petitioner's motion for contempt for failure to obtain court approval prior to filing the application in the Aviles Action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the Rosario Action, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the basis that it was filed in violation of an order of Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Briganti, J.) entered on or about June 8, 2023, which enjoined plaintiff from commencing further litigation arising from or related to ownership of the premises without prior leave of court (see Curry v Common Ground Community, H.D.F.C., 146 A.D.3d 641, 641, 46 N.Y.S.3d 41 [1st Dept 2017] ).  As the complaint was properly dismissed, Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint as moot.

Were we to reach the merits of plaintiff's motion, we would find it was properly denied, as the record contains no evidence of defendants' involvement in the alleged conspiracy to commit insurance fraud beyond plaintiff's conclusory allegations.  Plaintiff thus failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Chrysler E. Bldg., L.L.C. v. Keenwawa, Inc., 217 A.D.3d 494, 495, 191 N.Y.S.3d 38 [1st Dept 2023] ).

In the Aviles Action, Supreme Court similarly denied petitioner's motion for contempt on the basis that it was filed in violation of Justice Briganti's order requiring him to obtain leave of the court before commencing further litigation arising from or related to ownership of the premises (see Curry, 146 A.D.3d at 641, 46 N.Y.S.3d 41).

Were we to reach the merits of petitioner's appeal, we would decline to consider petitioner's arguments because all are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 146 A.D.3d 603, 603, 44 N.Y.S.3d 747 [1st Dept 2017] ).