Spremo v. Babchik

• Decision Date: 30 September 1992
• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Parties: Alfred SPREMO, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Fred BABCHIK, Ann Teresa McIntyre, Vincent J. Zichello, Miriam S. Hertz, and Bergadano, Zichello & Babchik, Defendants. Alfred SPREMO, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Ann Teresa McINTYRE, Jack Babchik, Miriam S. Hertz, and Vincent J. Zichello, Defendants.

Page 1019

589 N.Y.S.2d 1019

155 Misc.2d 796

Alfred SPREMO, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Fred BABCHIK, Ann Teresa McIntyre, Vincent J. Zichello, Miriam S. Hertz, and Bergadano, Zichello &

Babchik, Defendants.

Alfred SPREMO, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Ann Teresa McINTYRE, Jack Babchik, Miriam S. Hertz, and Vincent J. Zichello, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Queens County,

Part IA2.

Sept. 30, 1992.

Alfred Spremo, Jr., pro se.

Bergadano, Zichello & Babchik, New York City, for defendants.

ARTHUR W. LONSCHEIN, Justice.

Since 1976, the plaintiff, Alfred Spremo, Jr., has inundated the courts of this state as well as the federal courts with a multiplicity of baseless, frivolous, redundant lawsuits against lawyers, law guardians, Appellate Division Justices, Supreme Court Justices, Family Court Judges, assistant attorneys general, law secretaries, court personnel and any other individual or entity who might have gotten in the way of the plaintiff or who might have in any way displeased him. These lawsuits have resulted in vexation, harassment and needless expense to the defendants thus sued as well as to the state which is charged with the expense of defending the public officials and have placed an unnecessary burden on the courts and the supporting personnel. This plaintiff's pattern of bringing repetitive, irresponsible and malicious pro se filings constitutes a flagrant and serious abuse of the judicial process and must be stopped.

It appears that Mr. Spremo, at the slightest provocation begins these lawsuits either under his own name, or by using the name of his son Alfred John Spremo, as an alter ego. All of these lawsuits, both those brought in plaintiff's name and those brought in the name of his son, are drawn in the handwriting of the plaintiff and in his style of writing. I find that those actions brought in the name of Alfred John Spremo, were actually brought by Alfred Spremo, Jr. and as such, is simply the cover for Alfred Spremo, Jr. The same finding was made by Federal District Court Judge Mark Costantino in Alfred John Spremo v. Graci and Steiner, E.D.N.Y. CV-85-3862, that "There is no doubt that the real party instituting the lawsuit is the father Alfred Spremo, Jr." In his decision, Judge Costantino permanently enjoined the plaintiff from bringing any more lawsuits against the defendants in that action.

The time has come to consider permanently enjoining the plaintiff from bringing any further actions in the Unified Court System of the State of New York.

In these matters now before the court the defendants have moved to enjoin the plaintiff from bringing any further actions against the defendant lawyers and their client, Michael Dikman, Esq. Mr. Dikman represented Maria Spremo, plaintiff's wife in a custody dispute involving the custody of Alfred John Spremo, the son. The plaintiff has brought nine separate actions against Mr. Dikman in connection with his representation of Mrs. Spremo, and five separate actions against Mr. Dikman's lawyers in those lawsuits. The court, sua sponte, enlarged the scope of the application to include all pro se actions in the courts of this state and Mr. Spremo was notified in writing of this action, and thereafter was permitted to be heard in opposition to the same in a proceeding that took two days in open court.

The origin of the present proceedings began in 1975-1976 in Family Court, Queens County, in the custody proceeding. An attorney, Joseph Gertler, Esq., was appointed by the court as law guardian of the son, Alfred John Spremo. On the court's order, the child was placed in an institution. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in the custody dispute sued the judge, Mr. Dikman, the law guardian and the institution. Mr. Spremo then, without authority and without court sanction, removed the boy from the institution. A Family Court judge ordered plaintiff to return the boy to the institution, which plaintiff failed to do. Mr. Spremo then sued the second Family Court judge. After a number of appeals to the Appellate Division, that court in a memorandum decision, (Spremo v. Spremo, NYLJ--June 23, 1977) said, "This court will not entertain applications from the movant unless and until he complies with the order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated June 3rd, 1976." Plaintiff has never complied with that direction.

The plaintiff's response to the order of the Appellate Division was to bring an action in federal court against the justices of the Appellate Division and others, charging a deprivation of his civil rights (Spremo v. Dikman, Durante, Levine, Moskoff, Rodell, Latham, Shapiro, Hawkins, Suozzi, Hopkins, Mollen, Margett, Rabin, Titone, Damiani, O'Connor, Martuscello, Gulotta, Cohalan, et al., USDC-EDNY 78 CV1766.) It appears from an examination of the plaintiff's extensive litigation history that whenever he receives an adverse decision from any court, he brings a lawsuit against the judge who rendered the decision as well as the attorney who represented his opponent. District Judge Neaher in the action against the Appellate Division justices and others, in ruling against the plaintiff, noted in his decision that Mr. Spremo "seems to be using the federal court as a sword to protect the enjoyment of the fruits of his contumacious conduct."

In addition to the 18 judges and justices listed above, Mr. Spremo has brought over thirteen actions and proceedings against more than 13 judges and justices in various courts. They are Federal District Court Judge Mark Costantino, Justices Alfred D. Lerner, Alan LeVine, Harold Hyman, Angelo Graci, Daniel Joy, Joan Marie Durante, Joseph Rosenzweig, myself, Arthur W. Lonschein of Queens Supreme Court, Isadore Levine, Joseph Torres, David Gilman, and Leo Dikman of Queens Family Court.

He has brought at least five separate actions against Little Flower Children's Services, the institution to which his son was sent. He has brought four separate actions against Joseph Gertler, Esq., the law guardian appointed by the Family Court. He has brought actions against the lawyer who defended Mr. Gertler. He has brought actions against lawyer after lawyer who opposed him in his various lawsuits. Among them are Messrs. and Mesdames Dikman, Botter, Hannafy, Brant, Mallillo, Lassin, McIntyre, Babchick, Zichello, Hertz, Fuerth and Andino. In 1992, having been singularly unsuccessful in Queens County, he has brought two Kings County actions against old enemies: Spremo v. Wendy Fleming and Little Flower Children's Services, Index No. 181/92, and Spremo v. Hannafy, Index No. 1580/92, Mr. Hannafy is the attorney for Little Flower Children's Services.

Mr. Spremo has never been successful to my knowledge in any of the lawsuits he has brought by way of obtaining a decision, verdict or judgment in his favor. All of his actions against public officials resulted in dismissals or were abandoned or discontinued by Mr. Spremo. The complaints brought against public officials sound in exotic and non-existent causes of action such as "chicanery," "unnamed-tort," "conspiracy", "violation of civil rights" and the like. Typical of his activities is an action he brought against Justice Joseph Rosenzweig, Supreme Court, Queens County, in September, 1991 in which he sought damages of $50,000 against the judge in a cause of action labeled "un-named tort." After the Attorney General appeared for Justice Rosenzweig, Mr. Spremo wrote the Attorney General in a letter stating "Plaintiff has decided to discontinue the herein action and this notice can be considered the instrument effecting such. The plaintiff anticipates and believes that it would be in the interests of justice that the defendant does not in the future, preside in any action wherein plaintiff or his family might become a party." (Emphasis added) Aside from his presumptuousness in advising a Supreme Court Justice as to the law, the plaintiff, as in almost everything else he does as a pro se litigant, is incorrect in his interpretation of the law. A judge has an obligation not to recuse himself or herself, even if sued in connection with his or her duties, unless he or she is satisfied that he or she is unable to serve with complete impartiality, in fact or appearance. A litigant cannot be allowed to create a sham controversy by suing a judge without justification, and to then use that sham as a means for achieving the judge's recusal. To hold otherwise would be to give such a litigant "a license under which the judge would serve at their will." (Davis v. Board of School Commrs., 517 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir.1975), cited in People v. Diaz, 130 Misc.2d 1024, 498 N.Y.S.2d 698; U.S. v. Grismore, 564 F.2d 929 (10th Cir.1977)). A motion for recusal is addressed to the conscience of the court (People v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 41, 479 N.Y.S.2d 706, 468 N.E.2d 879) and in the absence of ill will to a litigant, a judge has an affirmative duty not to recuse himself, but to preside over the case. (People v. Diaz, supra; United States v. Mitchell, 377 F.Supp. 1312 (D.D.C.1974) aff'd, 502 F.2d 375 (D.C.Cir.1974)--the Watergate case.) Since only the individual judge knows fully his or her own thoughts or feelings, the question of when a judge must disqualify him or herself is generally a matter of personal conscience. (Casterella v. Casterella, 65 A.D.2d 614, 409 N.Y.S.2d 548) Thus the matter of the judge's disqualification is not for Mr. Spremo, but for the judge to determine.

Another scenario crafted by Mr. Spremo could serve as the basis for a comedy show if it were not such a waste of time, judicial resources and expense to the state and the parties. This involved an instance where Mr. Spremo actually hired a lawyer, who achieved a good result. Mr. Spremo then fired him and ended up suing his lawyer, the judge in the case, the Administrative Judge of the court in which the judge sat, the defendant's lawyer, the insurance company that provided the defendant's lawyer, and the court officers of the court where he brought his action.

In...