BITON v. FLUSHING BANK HSBC (2019)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

Danielle BITON a/k/a Daniel Bitton, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLUSHING BANK, Defendant, -and- HSBC Bank and Corporation Counsel of New York City, Defendants-Respondents.

570407 /18

Decided: January 23, 2019

PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Ling-Cohan, Edmead, JJ.

Order (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered June 19, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

The instant action was properly dismissed based upon the pro se plaintiff's violation of a prior court order requiring her to obtain judicial permission before commencing any “self-represented actions in the Civil Court of the City of New York without prior judicial approval” (Bitton v H.S.B.C., 39 Misc 3d 1238[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50923[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2013]; see Davey v Goodrich & Bendish, 118 AD3d 639 [2014] ), an order warranted by plaintiff's continuous and vexatious litigation (see e.g. Beraka v Biton, 55 Misc 3d 133[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50444[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv dismissed 30 NY3d 1080 [2018]; Bitton v H.S.B.C., 53 Misc 3d 154[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51746[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016] ). Even were we to consider the merits, we would find that the complaint failed to state any legally cognizable cause of action.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network