Deborah Lamb, et al., appellants, v. Unknown Offices of the Department of Health Mental Hygiene's Offices, et al., respondents. (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Deborah Lamb, et al., appellants, v. Unknown Offices of the Department of Health Mental Hygiene's Offices, et al., respondents.

2021–02137 2021–04602 (Index No. 2079 /20)

Decided: May 13, 2026

PAUL WOOTEN, J.P. HELEN VOUTSINAS JANICE A. TAYLOR JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ.

Deborah Lamb and John Mecca, Kings Park, NY, appellants pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Judith N. Vale and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents. This action represents the latest in a series of lawsuits commenced by the plaintiffs, pro se, in the federal and state courts over the last 20 years, in which the plaintiffs claim that various government officials have allegedly participated or acquiesced in covertly implanting electromagnetic devices inside the plaintiffs' bodies and, by doing so, violated, inter alia, the plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution (see Lamb v Governor for N.Y. State, 90 AD3d 716;  Lamb v Cuomo, 2017 WL 75760, *1–2, 2017 U.S. Dist LEXIS 2262, *1–4 [ED NY, No. 16–CV–6568 (JS)(AKT) ] ).  The plaintiffs commenced the instant action against parties who had been named as defendants in certain of the subject prior actions, including the Attorney General of the State of New York, Letitia James, and the New York State Office of Mental Health, sued herein as Unknown Offices of the Department of Health Mental Hygiene's Offices, among other things, to recover damages for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, for libel-based defamation against the Attorney General, and for various forms of injunctive relief.  The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint and to enjoin the plaintiffs from commencing any new actions or filing any further motions pertaining to the facts and circumstances alleged in this action without first obtaining leave of the court.  The plaintiffs opposed.  In an order dated February 25, 2021, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the defendants' motion.  The plaintiffs appeal. “[P]ublic policy mandates free access to the courts and zealous advocacy is an essential component of our legal system” (Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v Toledo, 186 AD3d 1441, 1442 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see DiSilvio v Romanelli, 150 AD3d 1078, 1080).  However, “a litigant can forfeit that right by abusing the judicial process through vexatious litigation” (Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v Toledo, 186 AD3d at 1442 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Dimery v Ulster Sav. Bank, 82 AD3d 1034, 1035).  In such cases, it is not improper for the court to enjoin a litigant from further filings pertaining to the allegations in a given action without the court's permission (see Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v Toledo, 186 AD3d at 1442;  see DiSilvio v Romanelli, 150 AD3d at 1080).  The same rules apply to pro se litigants, who, although afforded some latitude, are 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 (see Bank of Am., N.A. v Afflick, 172 AD3d 1146, 1147;  Strujan v Glencord Bldg. Corp., 137 AD3d 1252, 1254;  Mirzoeff v Nagar, 52 AD3d 789).  Since the plaintiffs have abused the judicial process through vexatious litigation in this case in a manner similar to the pattern of behavior they exhibited during the prior federal cases which garnered them a filing injunction from the federal court (see Lamb v Cuomo, 2017 WL 75760, *2, 2017 U.S. Dist LEXIS 2262, *4), the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to enjoin the plaintiffs from commencing any new actions or filing any further motions pertaining to the facts and circumstances alleged in this action without first obtaining leave of the court (see DiSilvio v Romanelli, 150 AD3d at 1080).