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.
Domenico MONACO, etc., appellant, v. Benjamin VAN MEERENDONK, et al., respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104–a for the judicial dissolution of a closely held corporation, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), dated September 22, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the cross-motion of Benjamin Van Meerendonk and 82 Degraw Associates, Inc., which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition and for certain injunctive relief to the extent of enjoining the petitioner from commencing any further pro se actions or proceedings against them, or any entity affiliated with them, without prior leave of the court.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the cross-motion of Benjamin Van Meerendonk and 82 Degraw Associates, Inc., which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the petition on the ground of res judicata (see Brody v. RBC Mtge. Co., 215 A.D.3d 724, 726, 185 N.Y.S.3d 707; Matter of Ram v. Hershowitz, 76 A.D.3d 1022, 1023, 908 N.Y.S.2d 106; see also Monaco v. Van Meerendonk, 190 A.D.3d 968, 968–969, 136 N.Y.S.3d 790).
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents’ cross-motion which was for certain injunctive relief to the extent of enjoining the petitioner from commencing any further pro se actions or proceedings against them, or any entity affiliated with them, without prior leave of the court. “[W]hile public policy mandates free access to the courts, a party may forfeit that right[, as here,] if that party abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will” (Caesar v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, 200 A.D.3d 842, 843, 155 N.Y.S.3d 350 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Ram v. Hershowitz, 76 A.D.3d at 1022–1023, 908 N.Y.S.2d 106).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the petitioner's remaining contentions.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, WARHIT and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
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.
Docket No: 2022–08730
Decided: December 13, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)