Bitton v H.S.B.C.

[*1] Bitton v H.S.B.C. 2016 NY Slip Op 51746(U) Decided on December 12, 2016 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 12, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Gonzalez, JJ.
570543/16

Danielle Bitton a/k/a Danielle Biton, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

H.S.B.C., Katherine Alexander, UFT, United Airlines, N.Y.P.D., F.D.NY, DC 37, Corporation Counsel Kevin McKirgan, Eastbank, AG of NY, Defendants.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony Cannataro, J.), entered June 15, 2016, which denied her application for leave to make a motion.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Anthony Cannataro, J.), entered June 15, 2016, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.

The underlying order is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice (see CCA 1702[a][2]; see also CPLR 2211). In any event, were we to nostra sponte grant leave to appeal, we would affirm. Civil Court previously barred plaintiff from filing any further motions, without written court approval, based upon her continuous and vexatious litigation (see Banushi v Law Off. of Scott W. Epstein, 110 AD3d 558 [2013]). Plaintiff's latest application for leave to file a motion was properly denied, inasmuch as the proposed motion was nothing more than a continuation of this pattern of vexatious litigation (see Matter of Nieves-Ford v Gordon, 53 AD3d 581 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 12, 2016