In re Sassower

• Decision Date: 10 January 2006
• Docket Number: Adversary No. 05-8655A.,Bankruptcy No. 05 B 23120(ASH).
• Citation: 338 B.R. 212
• Parties: In re George SASSOWER, Debtor. George Sassower, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth W. Starr, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York

338 B.R. 212

In re George SASSOWER, Debtor.

George Sassower, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth W. Starr, et al., Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 05 B 23120(ASH).

Adversary No. 05-8655A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York.

January 10, 2006.

George Sassower, White Plains, NY, pro se.

Attorney General of the State of New York, by Katherine E. Timon, Assistant Attorney General, New York City, for State Defendants, Eliot Spitzer, Francis T. Murphy, and Jonathan Lippman.

United States Department of Justice Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney, by Sarah E. Light, Assistant United States Attorney, New York City, for Federal Defendants, Kenneth W. Starr, John G. Roberts, Drew S. Days, Wilfred Feinberg, Charles L. Brieant, William H. Rehnquist, and Frank H. Easterbrook.

DECISION AND ORDER

ADLAI S. HARDIN, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.

Before me is an Order to Show Cause, issued sua sponte by this Court, why an adversary proceeding initiated by debtor-plaintiff George Sassower should not be dismissed. After hearing Sassower in opposition to the Order to Show Cause, I conclude that the proceeding must be dismissed on the merits because the complaint is patently frivolous and fails to state a claim against any defendant, and because the proceeding violates an injunction issued by the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hon. Peter K. Leisure). The Order dismissing this proceeding, at the foot of this Decision, will supplement Judge Leisure's injunction to make it clear to Sassower that further such litigation is barred.

Jurisdiction

The Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a) and 157(a) and the standing order of referral to bankruptcy judges dated July 10, 1984 signed by Acting Chief Judge Robert J. Ward.

Background

For a quarter of a century George Sassower, a disbarred attorney, has inundated state and federal courts across the nation with an extraordinary number of frivolous filings. Although earlier injunctions bar Sassower from seeking relief in this Court, his persistence in filing utterly baseless claims and motion practice against various public officials remains undeterred. What follows is a comprehensive history of Sassower's litigious past in the hope that future litigants and courts will be spared needless time, energy and expense. For a review of Sassower's far-flung litigation abuses in the years 1980 through 1993, I defer to District Judge Leisure's comprehensive recitation in Sassower v. Abrams, 833 F.Supp. 253, 256-60 (S.D.N.Y.1993).

The long and tortured history of vexatious litigation arises out of Sassower's representation of Hyman Raffe, a shareholder of Puccini. Puccini, a New York corporation, was dissolved and placed in receivership in 1980 by the New York State Supreme Court. Raffe appealed the court's order and it was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.

In the early 1980s, Sassower and Raffe filed numerous motions in New York state courts attempting to relitigate the dissolution and receivership of Puccini. The state courts repeatedly denied these motions and, on at least two occasions, imposed extraordinary costs and attorney's fees. Nevertheless, Raffe and Sassower continued to commence more lawsuits adding, as defendants, the judges and officials who ruled against them. The New York courts found that their various claims were precluded under principles of res judicata as well as doctrines of qualified and absolute immunity protecting public officials and judicial officers, and such orders were affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department. See, e.g., Raffe v. Feltman, Karesh & Major, 113 A.D.2d 1038, 493 N.Y.S.2d 70 (1st Dept.), appeal dismissed, 66 N.Y.2d 914, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 489 N.E.2d 772 (1985).

On January 20, 1984, Sassower and Raffe brought an action in the Eastern District of New York naming the same list of Puccini defendants and adding, as defendants, several state court judges and New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams. See Raffe v. Citibank, N.A., No. 84 Civ. 305 (E.D.N.Y.). On August 1, 1984, the Honorable Eugene H. Nickerson, United States District Judge, Eastern District of New York, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that (1) the claims against the private party defendants were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and (2) the claims against the state court judges and Robert Abrams were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of absolute immunity. In addition, Judge Nickerson found that Sassower had conducted the litigation in a vexatious manner and granted defendants' motion for sanctions. On January 23, 1985, the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Nickerson's decision without opinion. See Raffe v. Citibank, N.A., No. 84 Civ. 305 (E.D.N.Y. August 1, 1984), aff'd mem., 779 F.2d 37 (2d Cir.1985).

Less than one month after the dismissal of the Eastern District action, Sassower and Raffe filed an action in the Southern District of New York which named, as defendants, many of the individuals who were the subject of the lawsuit in the Eastern District. The case was assigned to Judge Conner. See Raffe v. John Doe, 619 F.Supp. 891 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Shortly after filing this action, Raffe and Sassower filed new actions in the New York state courts and the defendants in those actions moved the Supreme Court Special Term for a permanent injunction enjoining Raffe and Sassower from filing new lawsuits in the state courts. The New York Supreme Court subsequently granted the motion and entered an order permanently enjoining Sassower from filing any complaint or proceeding relating to Puccini dissolution in state court. See In re Barr, Index No. 01816/80 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., N.Y.Co. January 23, 1985) (Exhibit 24); see also In re Barr, Index No. 01816/80 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., N.Y.Co. March 11, 1986) (Exhibit 25); In re Barr, Index No. 01816/80 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., N.Y.Co. March 1987) (Exhibit 26); In re Barr, Index No. 01816/80 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., N.Y.Co. September 2, 1988) (Exhibit 27).

Sassower and a new actor in the litigation, Sam Polur, Esq., disregarded that order and filed at least ten actions in New York Supreme Court related to the Puccini dissolution and, thus, Sassower was the subject of several criminal contempt convictions. See Raffe v. Riccobono, No. 9522/85, slip op. at 6-7 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co. July 1, 1985) (criminal contempt conviction), aff'd, 113 A.D.2d 1038, 493 N.Y.S.2d 70 (1st Dep't), appeal dismissed, 66 N.Y.2d 915, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 489 N.E.2d 773 (1985) cert. denied, 480 U.S. 932, 107 S.Ct. 1570, 94 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987); Raffe v. Feltman, Karesh & Major, 113 A.D.2d 1038, 493 N.Y.S.2d 70 (1st Dep't), appeal dismissed, 66 N.Y.2d 914, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 489 N.E.2d 772 (1985). In In re Barr, supra, Sassower was convicted of criminal contempt and sentenced to 30-days imprisonment. See In re Barr, 121 A.D.2d 324, 324, 503 N.Y.S.2d 392, 392 (1st Dep't), appeal dismissed, 68 N.Y.2d 807, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 498 N.E.2d 437 (1986).

During this same time frame, Sassower, Raffe, and Polur filed three additional actions in this Court which asserted the same claims contained in Raffe v. John Doe and named most of the same defendants. The cases were assigned to Judge Conner as related actions. See Puccini Clothes, Ltd. v. Murphy, No. 85 Civ. 3712(WCC) (S.D.N.Y. filed May 16, 1985); Raffe v. Riccobono, No. 85 Civ. 3927(WCC) (S.D.N.Y. filed May 23, 1985); Raffe v. Relkin, No. 85 Civ. 4158(WCC) (S.D.N.Y. filed June 3, 1985).

On October 11, 1985, Judge Conner dismissed all four actions as being barred by the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Court stated:

I have reviewed the complaint in this case and have compared it to the complaint filed in Raffe v. Citibank, N.A. On the basis of that review, I think it plain that the instant action is barred by the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel set out above. The complaint in this action does no more than rehash the allegations put before Judge Nickerson. It is clear that Raffe and Sassower have merely attempted to revive issues that Judge Nickerson expressly held were without merit or barred by prior decisions in the state courts.

Raffe v. Doe, 619 F.Supp. at 896. The Court also awarded attorney's fees on the following grounds:

[I]t is overwhelmingly clear that this suit is entirely without merit and that it has no basis in law or fact. Moreover in view of Judge Nickerson's recent decision, to say nothing of the five-year history of duplicative state court proceedings, it is inconceivable that Raffe and Sassower had any legitimate purpose in instituting this action. Their only apparent aim was to harass the defendants in some desperate hope that they will eventually tire of defending lawsuits and surrender Puccini and its assets. This is nothing more than blackmail by litigation, and the Court will not tolerate it.

Id. at 897. Finally, Judge Conner issued an order permanently enjoining Sassower from bringing any further actions in federal court in connection with the Puccini dissolution or receivership. Id. at 898. The Second Circuit dismissed Sassower's subsequent appeal. See Nos. 85-7963, 7965, 7967, 7969 (2d Cir. March 18, 1986).

In 1987, in flagrant violation of the Court's injunction, Sassower filed another lawsuit in this District naming the same defendants, as well as adding Judge Conner and the judge who presided over Sassower's bankruptcy proceeding, the Honorable Howard Schwartzberg, as defendants. See United States for the Benefit of George Sassower v. Sapir, No. 87 Civ. 7135, 1987 WL 26596 (S.D.N.Y.1987). The case was originally assigned to the Honorable Charles S. Haight, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York, but after Judge Haight also was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, Judge Brieant took the case on reassignment.

On December 10, 1987, Judge Brieant dismissed the action on the grounds that Sassower's claims were frivolous and that Sassower had...