Reset A A Font size: Print

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

William Henry LAMMERS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Elizabeth Frothingham LAMMERS, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: January 21, 1997

Before MURPHY, P.J., and MILONAS, ROSENBERGER, ELLERIN and WILLIAMS, JJ. Mark S. Helweil, for Plaintiff-Respondent. Elizabeth Frothingham Lammers, Pro Se.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered January 12, 1996, which rejected documents submitted by defendant in connection with her motion for the court's recusal after the return date of the motion;  order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 29, 1995, which denied defendant's motion for the court's recusal;  order, same court and Justice, entered October 5, 1995, which denied defendant's motion for $11,000 in future attorney's fees;  order, same court (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.), entered February 28, 1996, which denied, as procedurally defective, plaintiff's motion to restrain defendant from seeking any further relief by notice of motion and to require her to seek all future relief by order to show cause, but granted the identical relief sua sponte;  and order, same court and Justice, entered February 28, 1996, which denied defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the numerous frivolous motions defendant has made, it was a proper exercise of discretion for the court to enjoin her from making any further motion in this action without judicial approval (Schwartz v. Nordstrom, Inc., 160 A.D.2d 240, 242, 553 N.Y.S.2d 684 appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 845, 560 N.Y.S.2d 129, 559 N.E.2d 1288, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 711, 563 N.Y.S.2d 62, 564 N.E.2d 672).   We have considered defendant's other points and find them to be without merit (see, CPLR 2214;  22 NYCRR 202.16[k][3];  Goodman v. Goodman, 228 A.D.2d 338, 644 N.Y.S.2d 731;  Harnett v. Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center, 215 A.D.2d 726, 627 N.Y.S.2d 83, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 801, 637 N.Y.S.2d 688, 661 N.E.2d 160;  see also, Lammers v. Lammers, 227 A.D.2d 255, 642 N.Y.S.2d 658).