Bernstein v. State
| Decision Date | 18 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 519531 |
| Parties | Joshua BERNSTEIN, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
129 A.D.3d 1358
10 N.Y.S.3d 752
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05241
Joshua BERNSTEIN, Appellant
v.
STATE of New York, Respondent.
519531
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
June 18, 2015.
Joshua Bernstein, New York City, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., GARRY, EGAN JR. and ROSE, JJ.
Opinion
EGAN JR., J.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered October 16, 2013 in Albany County, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
In 2001, plaintiff was disbarred from the practice of law by the Second Department, which sustained one charge of professional misconduct based upon plaintiff's conversion of client funds for his own use (Matter of Bernstein, 285 A.D.2d 233, 729 N.Y.S.2d 520 [2001], appeal dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 725, 740 N.Y.S.2d 696, 767 N.E.2d 153 [2002] ). Following unsuccessful attempts to reargue and/or appeal his disbarment, plaintiff commenced a declaratory judgment action in federal court alleging a violation of his 14th Amendment due process rights. After plaintiff's claims were dismissed as barred by, among other things, res judicata (Bernstein v. New York, 2007 WL 438169, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11322 [S.D.N.Y.2007] ), plaintiff commenced a second action in federal court, again asserting a due process claim and, further, challenging the constitutionality of Judiciary Law § 90(2). This action was dismissed based upon 11th Amendment immunity grounds (Bernstein v. New York, 2012 WL 1655783, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66031 [S.D.N.Y.2012] ).
Plaintiff then commenced the present declaratory judgment action in May 2013, contending that the Second Department was biased against him and again claiming that Judiciary Law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maki v. Bassett Healthcare
...final [disposition] on the merits has been rendered on the same subject matter, between the same parties” (Bernstein v. State of New York, 129 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 10 N.Y.S.3d 752 [2015] ; see Matter of Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269, 794 N.Y.S.2d 286, 827 N.E.2d 269 [2005] ). Under New York's tra......
-
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Ramirez
...were actually litigated previously, but also those which might have been raised in the former action" ( Bernstein v. State of New York, 129 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 10 N.Y.S.3d 752 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Piller v. Princeton Realty Assoc. LLC, 173 A.D.3d 12......
-
Piller ex rel. Fallsburg Estates LLC v. Princeton Realty Assocs. LLC
...litigated previously, but also those which might have been raised in the former action" or arbitration ( Bernstein v. State of New York, 129 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 10 N.Y.S.3d 752 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Tovar v. Tesoros Prop. Mgt., LLC, 119 A.D.3d 1127, 1128......
-
Emmons v. Broome Cnty.
...to raise it. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata precludes her from litigating that claim here (see Bernstein v. State of New York, 129 A.D.3d 1358, 1359–1360, 10 N.Y.S.3d 752 [2015] ; Matter of Feldman v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Rochester, 99 A.D.3d at 1163–1164, 952 N.Y.S.2d 824 ).We t......