MELNITZKY v. [And a Third-Party Action].

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Michael MELNITZKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. APPLE BANK FOR SAVINGS, Defendant-Respondent. [And a Third-Party Action].

Decided: June 23, 2005

BUCKLEY, P.J., TOM, MAZZARELLI, ELLERIN, GONZALEZ, JJ. Michael Melnitzky, appellant pro se. Rosner Nocera & Ragone LLP, New York (Peter A. Ragone and Anthony L. Cotroneo of counsel), for respondent.

 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 3, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.   Plaintiff is enjoined from commencing any further litigation in the courts of the State of New York arising from or related to issues with respect to his matrimonial action, including the ownership and/or distribution of property in connection therewith, and his representation with respect thereto, without prior leave of Supreme Court of the applicable county.   The Clerks of Supreme Court, New York and Bronx Counties, and the Clerk of this Court are directed to accept no filings from this plaintiff as to such matters without the prior leave of their respective courts.

 Plaintiff's claim is premised on the contention that defendant allowed the contents of his safe deposit box to be removed by his ex-wife (the third-party defendant) and her attorney, and that defendant colluded with said attorney by taking no precautions to safeguard plaintiff's belongings, thus violating their fiduciary duty to him.   All issues and claims raised herein that were or could have been addressed in plaintiff's matrimonial action, particularly regarding the inventory of safe deposit boxes, are barred (see generally Smith v. Russell Sage Coll., 54 N.Y.2d 185, 445 N.Y.S.2d 68, 429 N.E.2d 746 [1981] ).   Additionally, the claim for conversion is time-barred (see CPLR 214[3] ).

In light of the continuous and vexatious nature of his litigation,1 we issue our injunction sua sponte.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See e.g. Melnitzky v. Melnitzky, 284 A.D.2d 240, 726 N.Y.S.2d 649 (2001), rearg. denied 2001 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 10287, rearg. granted & adhered to 2002 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 3302, rearg. denied 2002 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 6672, rearg. & renewal denied 2002 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 9579;  Melnitzky v. Sotheby Parke Bernet, 300 A.D.2d 201, 750 N.Y.S.2d 859 (2002), rearg. denied 2003 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 4654, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 510, 766 N.Y.S.2d 163, 798 N.E.2d 347 (2003), rearg. denied 2 N.Y.3d 760, 778 N.Y.S.2d 777, 811 N.E.2d 39 (2004);  Melnitzky v. LoPreto, 8 A.D.3d 4, 777 N.Y.S.2d 304 (2004), rearg. denied 2004 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 10844;  Melnitzky v. Besobrasow, 14 A.D.3d 395, 787 N.Y.S.2d 655 (2005);  Melnitzky v. Hollander, 16 A.D.3d 192, 791 N.Y.S.2d 96 (2005), rearg. denied 2005 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 5374;  Melnitzky v. North Fork Sav. Bank, 17 A.D.3d 170, 794 N.Y.S.2d 13 (2005).