WENEGIEME v. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Celeste Wenegieme (“Wenegieme”), proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s judgment insofar as it dismissed her complaint against Defendants-Appellees pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Construing Wenegieme’s arguments liberally, as our precedents require, see, e.g., Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2006), we conclude that the District Court did not commit error. Wenegieme’s trespass claim is foreclosed by a September 17, 2014 decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx. In that decision, the New York court concluded that any entry of representatives of Defendant-Appellant U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) onto Wenegieme’s property was not “unauthorized” within the meaning of New York law and therefore could not constitute trespass. Wenegieme is therefore collaterally estopped to argue in federal court that U.S. Bank committed trespass. See Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 94 (2d Cir. 2005). Furthermore, insofar as Wenegieme argues that the statute of limitations barred U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action against her property, we refuse to consider that argument because Wenegieme failed to raise it in the District Court. See In re Nortel Networks Corp. Secs. Litig., 539 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 2008).

CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the May 5, 2017 judgment of the District Court. We DENY Defendants-Appellees’ motion for costs.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   We understand Defendants-Appellees to move in their brief for reimbursement from Wenegieme of the cost of their supplemental appendix.