Christopulos v. Christopulos
Citation | 208 A.D.3d 746,172 N.Y.S.3d 622 (Mem) |
Decision Date | 24 August 2022 |
Docket Number | 2020–02288,Index No. 705015/14 |
Parties | Gregory CHRISTOPULOS, respondent, v. Katherine CHRISTOPULOS, etc., et al., defendants, Nicholas Spyreas, appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
208 A.D.3d 746
172 N.Y.S.3d 622 (Mem)
Gregory CHRISTOPULOS, respondent,
v.
Katherine CHRISTOPULOS, etc., et al., defendants,
Nicholas Spyreas, appellant.
2020–02288
Index No. 705015/14
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—June 7, 2022
August 24, 2022
Nicholas Spyreas, Greenwich, Connecticut, appellant pro se.
The Dweck Law Firm, LLP, New York, NY (Jack S. Dweck of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for an accounting and to cancel a notice of mechanic's lien, the defendant Nicholas Spyreas appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Frederick D.R. Sampson, J.), dated January 15, 2020. The order denied, as academic, the motion of the defendant Nicholas Spyreas "to request Court to accept release and satisfaction of lien."
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied, as academic, the motion of the defendant Nicholas Spyreas "to request Court to accept release and satisfaction of lien," since it sought relief which had already been granted in a prior order of the same court entered September 30, 2019 (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ; see also [ Christopulos v. Christopulos, ––– A.D.3d ––––, 172 N.Y.S.3d 637, Appellate Division Docket No. 2021–06093 ; decided herewith]).
At this juncture, we decline the plaintiff's request to impose a sanction against Spyreas for prosecuting this allegedly frivolous appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 ). There are, however, more than a dozen additional appeals Spyreas has taken from papers in this action that are currently pending before this Court. Spyreas is therefore warned that future submissions to this Court that qualify as frivolous conduct may result in the imposition of sanctions against him pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 (see Matter of Ram v. Estate of Hershowitz, 149 A.D.3d 959, 960, 52 N.Y.S.3d 437 ;
...To continue reading
Request your trial- Boyle v. North Salem Central School District
-
Arnoux v. Glik
...by continually filing motions reasserting claims and seeking relief already requested, equity may enjoin such vexatious litigation. See id. (citing Matter Manwani v. Manwani, 286 A.D.2d 767, 768-769 [2nd Dep't 2001]; Sassower, 99 A.D.2d at 359). In light of the multiple motions filed in thi......