Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 37

1

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPT.

2 3

APPELLATE DIVISION STATE OF NEW YORK

4 5
6 7
B

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, petitioner

9 10
11

cA13-02242 s.c. # 2A13-053


THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK by Attorney General , respondent STEVEN E. FEDER, Attorney respondent

12 13 14

't5
16 17 18 19

VOID JUDGMENTS
Judge Ann Marie Taddeo V-1486-91 April 1994 Judge Jerome Gorski 'Brady v Miller, et al, 8309-95

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

March 1996
Judge Thomas VanStrydonck, 'State v Brady' 2002113647 September 2003 Judge Steven Sirkin 'State v Brady' 2A03111838 Never lssued 2004

32 33 34 35 36 37
3B

39
4A 41

42 43
44

Judge Matthew Rosenbaum Judge Richard Dollinger'


Brady v State et

45
46

al

2013/053

47 48 49
50

October 2013

--.
-.-G-

J-f.-!

f=
F!.F

ar vr

i ; : .<.:I-l,i

COURT :

it

trll

\./[r\
:

COTTNTY

OF I'IONROE

IEVIN PATRICK

BRADY'

Plaintrff -vsJUDGE MICI1AEL J. MII'LER ' JCDGE il';THOI'IY KA;''E, Juoos ANN MARIE TADDEo' gDWAnO ORLANDO' LEGAL AID SOCIETY JUDGE ANDREW SIRACUSE' EsQurRE' ineolgv BENNETT.EsQurRE' Jangs P. vAccA,

pEcrsrou Index No.: .8309/95

!tEMORaNDU!'l

Defendants

APPEARANCES:

'\
SC
tl

KEVT}I PATRICK BRADY, PTO


CARI,OS RODRIGUEZ

, ESQ. HILLER' Defendants' AttorneY for SIRACUSE and K.LNE ' TADDEO, GARY J' O'DONNELI'' ESQ' Attorney for Defendant' ORLANDO and Lne LEGAL ATD socrETY
:

..)

d\ $

ESQ" Pro Se No Appearance on bY or on- behalf of


JAHES

P-

VACCA,

BRADI-'EY BENNETII' ESQ'

GORSKI

,. J..

Thi.smattercomesbeforethisCourtbyway.)f on behalf of all the motions to dismiss plainti-ff's complaint of Bradle9 Bennett ' Thq named Defendants, with the exception :noves to add Defendants to and notions saj-d' opposes f Plaintif hisCcnrplaint,includingtheMonroeCountyDistrictAttcr;ley' Court, a deputy sheriff Monroe county Chief Clerk of Faniiy

':l

icer. (Hender:ltt) ; judicial hearing -::.-=v= /"Fi-:1lnar} and Maas); attorney for Respondent. Kearns ::-. u:iderLying Farnily court action (Poynzer); the Respondenb' a police
qr'Y

o-f

-=->

\r!-5lrlq'I

tteeY

Ieerns, in underlying action; a Family court Judge, (Kohout); The motions to riismiss by the Def encants include -. al. requests for reLief -that incl-ude the imposition of sanetions and an injunction against the Plaintiff from uslng the court system to harass and annoy the current Defendants, the proposed additional Defendants, and any possible future Defendants 1'ho become involved. with the underlying Farnily
Court actionplaintif f brought ihe within action al-leqing' amongl other things, violations of his civil rights as provided in 42 USC 1983 and 1985, due to the rulings and treatment he a11egedly received at, the hands of several Family Court' ,Judges, one supreme court Judge, private attorneys, and court-

appointed 1aw guardians involved in his many proceedings bef ore Farnily Court. Plaintitf is the father of an out-of-wedlock child who, pursuant to prior orders of Family Court. lives with her mother, with Liberal visitation having been granted to the feels that he should have been tranteC custody, and has not been granted enough visitation so as to make the contact with his daughter "meaningful". Since the original- Family Court proceeding, the Plaintiff has brought numerous :'.rodif ication proceedings, many ot' thett'. pro Se, and Plaintiff plaintiff.

-2

hasbeenorderedtopaltcounselfeestotheat'torneyforthe c;:l-d'smotheronatleastoneoccasion':t'isunclearwhich' ifanylofthepriordecisionshaveu*...appeaied;buthenoli ; cnoosestoproceedagainstallthoseinvolvedinthis-atiE,.:, :.ncludingthepersonneiinvoivedin.ori.gina.]-custody proceedings' later Ceterrni-nation, tbe . later enf orcement modificationproceedings,contemptproceedings.dndt'owncourt criminalproceedingsstemmingfro:i,aliegedproblemsincurred with visitation' .AnalrnostidenticallawsuitrrasfilecbyPlaintiff' proslinFederalDistrictCourtinRochester,andsamewas In that case ' dlsr:rissed by lion ' David G ' Lariner '

Jr:dEIe

l,arimerhe]-dtbat,,ajudqedefendingalgS3suitisentitred toabsoluteinmunityfromdanagesforaclionsperformedinhis
judicial caPacitY". ciEinE Sturto
v

'

Sparkman 435 US 349

(1967); et aI' There has tL978); Pierson v. Rav 385 US 547 beennoallegationthatLheDefendantsactedinanywayother further heLd that in their official capacity. ,Judge Larimer thattheattorneysfromthei,egalAidSocietyarealso capacity of absolutely imrnune, 6s they are acting in the proeess. guardian ad liten, dl integral part, of the judicial
'6ee-4r-:--s,,-:g,r.-'l-,-..i.*-iie-e-450US325ii'9831;anoF'l:'liy'''T:l+Aeii
g2A

F.2d 673 (10th Cir'-1990) ' JudgetarimeralsodisnissedtheSectionlgS3c]-ains private attorneys ' agiainst the non-state actors, including the the purview '>t as t.hese l:ype of Defendants do not com; under -3

color of state stagute in that they'do not act under the


: Lari rne:: Cenied Lhe i on, decis same ':ddge In that

"there is no record Defendants. rnotion for sanctions staiing, at ehis stage the oi a pattern in the recorC before n' anC Plai.ntiffhasnotpursuedthisfederalactiontounreaSonab]-e lengths...rwillgivethePlaintiffthebenefifofthedoubt praint j-f f clairns are and det.ermine that, though the reasonably been meritless, a layman in his position could unaware of their flaws until now.'' of the The case at bar gias comnenced by the filing 25' !995' several summons and,complaint on or abou! september monthsaftertheFederalCourtactionwasdismissedbyJudqe suit agrainst tarimer. The within action, however' also brings oneofhisforrnerattorneys,JanesP.vaCCa,Es(l'andoneOf. theattorneyswhorepresentedhischild.smotherbefore SuprerueCourt.ThemotionbyPlaintifftoaddDefendants wou}dbringseveraloftheDefendantsintheFederalcourt present lawsuit who had heretofore not been made a part of the lawsuit, as well as additiOnal members of the bench and other court personnei or law enforceriien-u officials who cafiie into u'urrt?.ci' i;iuh fnis nlaf,!e.i. ' AtthetimeoftheFederalCourtaction,Pla:ntiff court, also had a simurtanous petition pending in supreme V' Siracuse on l'lonroe County whictt was decided' by Hon' Andrew Juneg'igg..inihatietterdecision'JusticeSiracuse
*4

he (Plaintif f ) c.::.:ented upon the "numerous vexatious actions }:asbz.oughtinmanycourtsinanattempttoobtaineustody.'; atten"pting to oh't-'i:-n and f urther nor-ed that "he {Piarnt-iri) :s t that rel-ief t+hich he has court supreme of ievel trial the from n-g:ecctiEopU(Su.:beforecheAppe].lateDivision..,After before hin' Justice Siracuse Cisnissing the qetition saying "because of the fiarassing nature admonished Plaintiff, this court has of this and .the petitioner's other proceedings" consideredLheissueof.sanctionsandcounselfees.itis uncomjnontoawardsuchfeeswhenalitiglant'actsprose. petitioner,s crafty and knowing use the 1ega1 systen, thougih. status as a shows extensive, if misdirected learning. His proselitigantcannotprotecthinrattheexpenseofthe to respondent.,, Justice siracuse, then, ordered the Plaintiff pay costs and counsel 'ees, but iic no-- SancLi-on Plaintif f f or his frivolous coniuct at that tine ' For the reasons stated b3'bc"h Justice Larimer and Justice siracltse, the action against Lhe Defendants hercl'n are disrnissed in aII respects and Iearre to add additional defendants is denied. This case is simply a re-hashing of the matr-ers hearC heretofore. Sinrpiy appl-ying the principies of
IEs jUe.j-,:aLa, C,i.is r:rattef
rnUSt be U-SniSSl:6 ;tS r:r n-- '--O.::i.i("':.

DefendanLs to the Federal- court action and the one at bar'

on

the nerits, the inmunity of the judici-ary acting in their judiciaL capacity is absolute, as is Li?e immunity of those r-he acting r:pon court appointment as guar-dian ad iit'en tci:

:.'rildren' (See cases cited above). Absolute aisobegranted,herein,toiusticeSiracuse'whowasnota r- i on ' Dei andan L in the Federal Court ac to The other two "ne' Def ehdants" are also entit'-l-ed Bradley t*rr' dismissal of the complaint as agl-ainst them as
xnust

immunity

BennettservedasattorneyfotMs'Kearns'themotherofthe Plaintiff.sdaughterinthematterbeforeJusticeSiracuse. CertainlytherecanbenocivilrightscarJse.ofactionagrainst him,asheisnotastate-actor.Theother."',causesofaction,. allegredagainstHr.Bennettapparentlyincludefraudand Neither cause of action is pLead with the reguisite Iibel. (CPLR 3016 (a) and specificity required by New York law' (b)). Further, if Plaintiff was unhappy with the result he the obt'ained in Justice Siracuse's courtroom, including hiS remedy awarding of counsel fees and costs to Mr- Bennett, }'astoappealsane,nottotrytocollaterallyattackthe findings in a lawsuit against the Judge and the opposing counsel. Therefore, the complaint as against Mr' Beanett is
dismissed sua sPonte.

' Likewise, the "causes of action" purportedly a]'leged against lir- vacca must also f ai1 for lack of specif icici' as :*qu:-red by 1aw. A iagal nalpracti ce 16ersr'ii't :ius r nslc* specific 1egal allegations, supported by factual allegations' without which the cause of action is unsustainable'-z-e1!-]l-n-Y' T: i = ( 2nC Depc ' - Lg 94 ) ' 5L0 AD2d 209 if:Snlr9ig,*e!-ei
i:nportani to note thaL t{r.

,s Vacca waS not the Piai-nt,r i f

-5

aad aiter Mr ' ::':-,tr:-na1 attorney, and that bef ore ' Curing ' carrj-ed Vacca,s representation of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff c;lhisownlegta].courseofconductwithoutcoordinatinqrSame Tf :t is dgtermined that Plaint: f'f ' s with Mr. Vacca conpiainl incended to sei iorth a- cause ci Lccidn soundinei in fraudorlibel,thosecausesofacLionmustfailforlackof (b) ) ' Certainly specif icity- (See cPi,R 3015 (a) and causeofactionfornegligenceistj-me--barredifsuch negiiE;ence is alleged prior to three -. y""t= conmencement of the within action
f

any

rom the

IntheactionbroughtbeforeJudgetarimer'the plaj-ntiff was "given the benefit of the doubt"' in that a nonlawyer may not have realized the lack of merit of his lawsuits. This court caBnot give Plaintiff that sahe benefit' traving been specifically warned that his conduct was without pl-aintiff merit, i.e, frivoious. judge Larimer exprained to in his,lecisiol c:-s:issing the Federal court acti"ori, not onLy why the Fed.erai Court would not sustain the action aqainst Defendants, but whi. the action was absolutely meritless chose' Piaintiff without regard to which forum Plainliff herein has opted to igncre the earl-ier admoniticns nf 'Tr-1rlge l,arine:. anc has l-i!-er.lis* igncred ihe wa:'nings ': I';5'---Siracuse as to the peril of continued, harassing Iitigati-on' This Court will not pernri-t the continuing barrage of baseless litigiation to continue unfet.tered. 22 NYCRR i30-f i aiL'cws the Court- to award to opposing parties "costs in the forn oi
7

incurred and re::'sursenent for actual expens-eE reqso4a!-1y f rivol-ous conduct"' :e:s:::a,rLe atlorneys f ees' resulting f rom' : also "inpose to Court the allows ?hat same rule ,financibi conduct" ' rivolous f in urrg"guJ who Tct,heextenEthatthepartiesopposingthePlaintiff,s complainthereinincurredactualaLtorneysfeesand/oractual expenses,samewillbereirnbursed.Saidpartie.Sshallsubmit detailedaffidavitsinsupportofclaimedfees..'Additionally' thisCourtimposesasanctionuponPlaintiffintheamountof plaintiff knew or for comrnencing litigation s 2,500-00 s}rouldhaveknowntobemeritlessandfrivolous.afterbeing warned that to do so would result in sanctions' i,astly,thisCourtw!ll.grantaninjunctionagainst theP]'aintiff.andordersthatPlaintiffmaynotbringany otherlawsuitsinanyCourtbasedoniheFamilyCourtmatter (oranyofitsoutgrowth,i.e,lawsuitsagainstlawyers' judges,courtstaff,etal',whohasbecomeinanywayinvolved prior in that Farnily court dispute or its progeny) without permj.ssiontodosofrornthePresidingJudgeofthatcourtor be nade that Judge's designee. All Monroe county courts sha1l iling of any ar\rare of this order so as to f orestaLl the f further baseless lawsuits. A violation of this injuncti'on by piaintiff sharr_ subject him ro the possibie ir-p'cs:-ti::.:i

iuriher sanctions. costs and fees.


Please submit

DATED: Buffalo, New York January L6. 1995

9-

rfl v
, ' 't' .: .' :' ' :.
'
.

'
Present:
STAfE
OF

Suprene At a. Uotion ltar:n of the of New York he-ld coirrt "i-iii"-iiate ior the Count'y of Hcnroe at-in and; Nen ih" trtl'I of, Justice' Rochestbr' Decenber' of daY 5th Yqrlc on the 1995.

HON. JERg-if,8:'C. GORSXI

Justlce 'Preslding
.

SUPREI,TE

NEI{ YORK ' :, . cotnfTv' cottRT

oF

l{o},IROE

KE'\'IN PATN,ICK BRAEY',

Plilntl!f,
-VS-. .::"
..
.

}]IDGHENJI, QRDER AI'!D PERHANENT

IN,XINqLION

.:

J: H{ffitER, J:q,DGE: A}lTgONy KAI{E' tttDGE A}III l{4888:',!AD0Eg'. EDI'ARD onr.eiOo. Legal Andigaglety, JLTDGE 'EsQ-, - Ar{DREW btnrcusn,, gfilgtgl BEI.rliIElrf , and JN{ES P. vAccA,.'iSQ.
JUOCS UICHAEL
,, :.. The pla:lngi:tf ,. Kevin

t) rndex No. ljJtlct (_l


:-'j
.-i

21'
I

Q1
5:'i

:F

I
-J

patriclc Brady, having conmencs ctr ^ this 42 U.S.C. Sect,f,ons 1983 and 198.5 civil rightE action by . i.. filing a ltu5nons;ind,,rle-rlfied Cooplalnt dated Septenber 25, 1995, seeking a nonetary,ind decLaraFory i6]ief against each of the
' ,''' naned def endantq to. tlr,i.s action, and ' The natt'Gf. havlng d.ul1t comc on t:o be heard before this
]

Cgurtr oh the 6th, da.y. of, Deeemberi, .1995, and plaintiff , Kevin patrlclt Brady, hav.iilg'appearcd pio se, and. the defendant Judgcl :Dennis c. (Hi1l,er, Kane, r 'lond sir.aeuie) havlng appeared by
r.l

Vacco, Attorney: Gdnraf

of tbe State of

New Yort<, Carlos

Rodriguez, essisgant Attorney Ge.neraI,,' ot, counsel, and defendant


Edrrard or.lando, ne;i-,,having'a.ppeared'by Saperston & Eay, P. C.,

' , : : ''

l{eredith H. Smith, Esr{li, of counsel, and defendant James p. vacca, Esg., having. appeared, pro ae, reapective parties and"counsel herein and havlng reeerved decision, and thie court havlng entered a written Hemorandurn DeciEion dated Janurrf/ 16, 1996, copy attached hereto as Uxhtbit A and lnoorporated by reference herein, *o*, upon arr" oeri.beratl0n having been had and upon plaadings to r.rit: pralntiff ,s sunmons and compralnt dated sePteFhet ;'5, Lg95, plaint.iff 's notlce of notion for judgment by court on defauLtl and f.or asgessmcDt of danages dated october 3o, 1995, plaintlff's not,{ce of notion to add defendant partiee dated November 19, 1995, pL4lntiff'r revised notice of notion to add ''. defendant parties d,ated novenber.25, 199s, plaintiff ,s notice of uotion for disaissal of d,afenses and cross-uotion, and rnotions for aunBary judgment dated Noveuber 30, 1995, plaintiffr.s audio extribits nunbcred 112,3 dated Decernlier 3, 1995, praintiff ,s
':

:' .. ,.

revieed notice'of rr,6t{on to aild dbfendant parties dated December 18r 1995, Plalntltlrs DorF dafini.ta etdternent sith attached =.-..- - exhLblts dated Decenber ro. 1995, praintiff,s affidavit in support of notion to" add d,efendang,.partj.es dated December 18, l'995 and praintiff's supplenentar conplaint of additional parties '..: datcd December tr8, 1995, :and. the defendant Judges, (lliller, Kane, . oitober 1?, x99s and affidavit in opposc.tlon to plaintiff,s Eotion to anend courplaint dateit Decenber L, 1995 and defcndant

defendant OrlandorS'noti.c of cross-trotion for an order '\: disuissl-ng the conptrai-irt dated Nov"bnber 22, 1995 and, defsndant
'

a'.' svorn to on January 4, 1995 and Orlando,a additionst,,affidavit ''''. d,efendant Vacca's veiif led anEwcr, aff irnatj.ve defenses and on october 13, 1995, defendant Vacca'9 counterclainr asorin;'to .'''
dated lfovember 2't, lggs'and defend.ant vacca's supplemental affidavit arrorn to dn January 5., L996 subntrtted by tha raspe,cti-ve parties and counsrtltl;'t'ls1'sln, and due ddliberation having been had thereon, it is heraby defendants is disniei:ed, ln all. respects, and it is further, ORDERED, that plalntiff,ts notion for Ieave to anend the
.
.':

,,:

'

'''
:

..

:
.l:.

. ' '. :.'


.. I
.

furthE

attorney'e fees and-'rcoetb resufting fron plaintiff ,s friVolous ,i, conduct in thls ., "n4l,p'rier. abtions; and it l_s further oRDERED, ,:... pursuant- to 22, NycnR 130-r.1, plarntlff , 'that K"vin Patrick Brad-g;': .'. "tr"lf pay, ufthin thirty (3o) days of entry

,.

ihat this: eourt i'rrposes nonetary sancEions '....' against plaintlff, Kevi-n Patr.iek Brady;. purauang to 22 NycRR 13o1-1, and that pratritd.ff shatl. Faya to arl opposing parties and their reepecti.r" withln thirty (30) days from the date "io.rcl, of entry and service of this Judgment and order, arl actuar elq)enses rrasonablyi incurred. by ,theu, lncluding reasonable
ORDERED,
: .1.'...

and service of the Oxfleri the sum ol


& Day,

t -l q E .u',

co sapercton

P.c., Heredlth','tl. smith, Esq., of counsI, for reasonable attorney,s fceg and qoste expended, on behalf of defendant .: .. Orlando, in defensc:,qf plaintlfftE frlvolous action and conduct hcrein, and it is further . oRDERED., that,I4FEuant to 22.. NYCRR 130-1.1, plaintlf,f,' '. KevLn Patrick Brady-, ,ehi}l PaY, uXthin thirty (30) days of entry ' ^ i t3 .CO, to Janes p. and service of the'9idev':r' :th 5rrrh qf 5 :'-'
.

Vacca, Eaq., lor rAasonable attorncY's fecs and ioots, in defense '' ': of plalnttff ,e'frtyotroug: iCt.lon and conduct herein, and lt'is t further
_

that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, plaintiff' Kevin PatrJ-ck 'Brady,' shall pay, wittrln thirty (30) days of entry \ -\ and eervl.ce of the::order, the su' of S 2 7 01' C'L\, to Dennis .axrtI vacco, Attorney General of the Statc of, Neu York' carlos Rodrlgruez, Assistant:Attorncy- General, of Counsel, nade payable to the New York StatC'Dbpartnent.of Law, for reasonable
oRDERED,
t'.,.

attorney's fees arld: coiter on,beha)-f of the defendant Judges, in defense of p)-airitig6'* fiivolous acti.on and conduct herein, and it is furtlrer ORDERED.,,,,that pursua4t ag 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, this Court inposer an additionar Kevin patrlck .'''' Banct.lon :against plaintifl, 8rady, in thb anoun! of 'S:2,5oO. to bc pald within thirty (30) days oi entry and,,:'iervice of thir Judqrnent and order, to tht. New York Stat,e Off tce of Court Adnlnistraiion, ior connencing lltlgation, plalntiff,",knew or shou).d have known to be rueritlesis

and trlvolous, aftei:'being Uarnedittrit ao so souLd result ln ': furj'ther canctions, and it'ie ' . vtthin thirty (3o) days of ORDEREE,,:,l,that . : .. . , I ptaintitf',: :.

6ntr1l and 6erviceiq(,thls Judg6cnt: and Order, ehall file arid serve upon thle Court"end all parties, verification that the
.
...

..:...i above-uentioned sailGbdondr,,qggta ;endi'attorney' B fees, have been

paid in fu}l,

and',,,i;ti.:i*9
' '' i, :,'.

:'."i t' t'

f,urthLr
369

:,
a

'

oRD*lD,,ithat

:{ef.ridanls' applicatlon for

perEanent LnJunction ts grantsd anh plaLntlff is hereby

prohtblted frorr. Pf#f;rg.inq gr.,e,111ng,;.ty" other leweuits of potitLon in a4v Court (Stadb;i'o:fiiiedelrltr)'rrasg6:.oh thrd Fauily Court natter
. 1..i

' ' (or an! of tts outbrbirth, 1,.e., Ia*gui.ts agafnst lawyers, judqes, court staf f , et a1,: r,l.r rliho has' :becone in any way lnvolved ln that Fanily Court dicplffie1io.lr its ,:p1.pge,11!7), wl-thout prior peraission to .'..',. , do. so fron ttre prebdatrhg;r or,. Supifi,elsi|lg Judge of that Court or :p,nAi, lt' ls..fqrtht' that judge'r deslgnrif; ,..,.,,i,. . , . oRDEREIt'i,:,tihAt a violatlbn of this permanent injunetlon
'
.

t"'"t'

...

:.

by plaintiff sfiali' gtrbject plaintiff to the possible funpositlon . ., of further sanctionsp,;costs:and. feesl and it is further ''.. ORDERED:;: tlr-Ct a.,copy of thls,Judgrment, orde,r and '' ". 1'..
,:

lj.:.'

Permanent Injunctioir.. shall be servsd upon the clerk of aIl couits


., . . :. (State and Federal').':i6qatid:' ln llonroe councy.
,.

sisned
Nes

rhis I-t

day

lork.

of h,

--1

Buffalo,

Approwed as
S}PERSTON
&

to forn:
DAY, P.C.

/)r" 0

-Si,i,

il i

of .Counecl Attorney for Edwatd-'oflando

$8---r;gs6--- :.eAa^94*,, 4,, !pt.d.,..F

Jc4rt.P va':q* C Jaaes p. vacca; Esal-Pro Se


.-.

-(5 661

== =.>
:;

i-t ;=

:-1 F.

t;

-n
=!

5s

https ://govapps I

.propertyinfo.com/wam3/viewlndex.asp

Document lndex Detail

Iffitrg@
General lnformation

erintS,@

200110300323 No: 1013012001 couRT JUDGMENT Reference No: 82001013120 County: MONROE Perfected Date: 10/30/2001
Control No: Book Filing Date: lnstrument FAMTLY lype:

Book: JUDGMENTS
Page No:
Filing Time: 11:52 AM

Amount: $1,b7s.00
Reference 2:

Court: FAMILY
Comments:

Secured: NO # of Pages: 6

Plaintiff
FEDER, STEVEN E Fee lnformation

Defendant

,,, .!,.. BRADY

KEVIN PATRICK

Fee

Amount

TOTAL $1,575.00

Supplemental Document lnformation


Date
10t30t2001

Notation

lndex

Detail
Gurrently Viewing

View lmage

@!HEEro

st'

l of I

3/1712014 2:09 PM

UPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OLTNTY OF MONROE

E PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Petitioner,

Index No. 2002113647

DECISION and ORDER


EVIN PATRICK BRADY,
Respondent.

PPEARANCES: For the Petitioner:

Eliot Spitzer, Esq., Attonley General, by Carios Rodriguez, Esq., of counsel

For the Respondent:

Kevin Patrick Bradl', Pro

Se

HOMAS M. VANSTRI'DONCK, J.

L
This matter comes before the Couft, initially, by way of a Petition for Writ of Mandamus by evin Patrick Brady against Ann Marie Taddeo and Gail A. Donofrio, both Judges of the Monroe

unty Family Court, arising from a custody and support proceeding earlier terminated. Respondent
ady took issue with the original terms of visitation and support and consequently has been prolific

ith lawsuits and proceedings in both State and Federal Courts.

In 1996,Justice Jerome C. Gorski, of the New York State

Sr-rprenle Court, signed an Order and

njupctiol directing Mr. Brady to resolve all past litigation and to limit future litigation alising from the
me subject matter. (Justice Gorski of the Eighth Judicial District was assigned the matter in 1996 as
{

r. Brady named several judges of the Seventh Judicial District.) Additionally, Mr. Brady has been
trained from filing any action arising frorn the Family Court proceedings in Federal District Court

ithout first obtaining permission from U.S. District Court Judge David Larimer.
Justice Gorski in the 1996 Order enjoined Respondent Brady from bringing future lawsuits in

ny State courl based on the Family Court case or its progeny, without prior permission from the

upervising Judge of that Court. Mr. Brady brought his Petition for Writ of Mandamus before this ourt requesting permission to proceed against two Family Court judges. This Court denied espoldent (then Petitioner) the right to proceed and dismissed the Writ of Mandamus. Subsequently the People of the State of New York, by Eliot Spitzer, Attomey General of the
tate of New

York, with lndex No. 2002113647 commenced, by personal service,

Notice of Motion to

nish Respondent for criminal and civil contempt for his failure to comply with Justice Gorski's Order. ustice Gorski had imposed a sanction against the Respondent pursuantto22 NYCRR 130-1.1, in the

t of $2,500.00 and, in addition, orderedpayment of reasonable attorneys fees and costs resulting

io'r Respondelt's frivolous conduct. Justice Gorski ordered that tiie Respondent
mes p. Vacca, Esq.; and $2,767.00 to the Attorney General of the State of New

pay, within 30 days

f the entry ald service of his Order, the sum of $2,798.00 to Saperston and Day, P'C.; $2,112.00 to

York. The Gorski

rder also required Respondent to file proof of payment of those sums within thirty (30) days of entry

f the Order. The Respondent failed to comply with any of the mandates of the Gorski Order.
The Attorney General's Office brings this Motion on behalf of the parlies to whom the payments
re to be made and the instant case was commenced by personal service upon the Respondent ort

ovember

21,2002. Tlie Notice to the Respondent included warnings, to wit: "PLEASE TAKE

OTICE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION IS TO PLINISH THE ACCUSED, KEVIN ATzuCK BRADY, FOR CzuMINAL AND CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT, AND SAID
TJNISHMENT MAY CONSIST OF A FINE, IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTII, ACCORDING TO THE

AW, WARNING: YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT IN YOUR

MMEDIATE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT".


Respondent requested a hearing. His request was granted and the hearing was conducted on the

bllowing dates: May 6, 2003;June 3, 2003; Iuly 2,2003; and July 3,2063. The Respondent appeared
se for this matter. On every occasion where the Respondent appeared he was advised by this Court

obtail an attomey to represent his interests. The Respondent was further advised that the Court
uld considerassigned counsel if the Respondent would submit a financial alfidavit. Respondent
hose not to file a financial affidavit with the

Court. The Public Defender's Office determined

esponderit was not qualified for representation by that office'

The Respondent was advised on virlually every court appearance that he should retain an ttorney, that he was at a disadvantage representing himself, that the Court could not and would not act
his attorney and that if he was found in contempt of court, he could be confined in the Monroe

ounty Jail. Respondent insisted on representing himself.

FINDINGS
The terms of the Judgment and Order of Justice Gorski were very/ clear and unequivocable in its

pplication to the Respondent. The Respondent was ordered to pay sanctions and attomeys fees witliin

0 days of the date of the Order's entry.

Petitioner and Respondent, by way of stipulation during this hearing, agreed that the sanctions
d attorneys fees were not paid as of the date of the hearing. Respondent submitted several video tapes

ior to the conclusion of the hearing. Court Exhibit ll4, dated July 2,2003, videotaped an interview

ith Respondent by a local television station in the Rochester area. Respondent in the video tape lluded to the fact that he had not paid the required payments and boasted that he did not intend to make
he required payments in the future even

if

he had to go to

jail.

Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 were New York State Tax Relurns for 1998, 1999, and 2000.
espondent in 1998 had gross income of 571,835; in 1999 $156,612; and in the year 2000 R.espondent d gross income of $119,863. This Court finds that Respondent's tax retun.)s denonstrate tirat iie had
he means to comply

with Justice Gorski's Order. No proof to the contrary was submitted.

Petitioner further offered proof indicating that sporadic contact occurred from the date of the
rder to the date of the hearing requesting that the outstanding amounts of money be paid.

This proceeding was brought pursuant to Sections 150 and753 of the Judiciary Law. The imary purpose of crimir-ral contempt is to preserve a Court's authority as conpared to protecting
gainst prejudice to the rights of a party in a civil contempt. There are circumstances where the same ct can constitute both forms of contempt, such as the disobedience of a lawful mandate of the Court.

Judiciary Law $ 753(a)(3) gives a Cqurt of Record power to punish aparty for a civii conternpt
br the non-payment of a sum of money or for any other disobedience of a lawful mandate of the Court.

titioner's proof has established that Justice Gorski's Order was a lawful mandate of the Supreme

ourt and tliat it was personally served upon Respondent. The proof has also established that
spondent has

willfully and intentionally ignored

the mandates of the Gorski Order, notwithstanding

aving the resources to pay the same.


Respondent has been given every opportunity to reply and to be heard during the course of the

earing. Respondent's conduct of ignoring the dictates of Justice Gorski's Order and being boastful of
is refusal to comply, amounts to a flagrant disregard of Justice Gorski's mandates.

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT At the hearing the Petitioner introduced the Jud-ement and Order of Justice Gorski
as

well

as

f tlrat the Respondent was served with that Order on March 21, L996. The Respondent admitted he
d received the Order and that he had not complied with its terms and had not paid any of the sums
red to any of the parties named by Justice Gorski.

Therefore, it is the finding of this Court that Justice Gorski issued a lawful order to the espondent. This Order contained clear and unequivocal mandates which directed the Respondent to

clearly stated sums of money to specified individuals. The Order also clearly required the

espondent to file r.vith the Court proof of compliance with the Court Order within thirty (30) days
he e1try

of

of the Order. The Respondent had actual notice of tire Order and, based on his testinlony, he

ntentionally and willfully chose to ignore all the provisions of the Gorski Order. This finding is also
ased upon the assertions made by the Respondent in his videotaped

"summation" as well as in his

tatements to the local media (submitted by Respondent in evidence). In that interview he expressed his

ntent to be behind bars if necessary rather than pay as ordered. The Respondent's income tax returns,

bmitted into evidence at the hearing, demonstrate that he has been able to pay these sums if he so

ired. In fact, the Respondent has made no argument that he is, or ever was, unable to pay the sums
ndated by Justice Gorski. Therefore, it is the finding of this Court that the Respondent

willfully and intentionally

isobeyed the Order of Justice Gorski and that the Respondent is guilty of criminal contempt in

iolation of Judiciary Law $ 750.

CIVIL CONTEMPT
To establish civil contempt the Petitioner must prove:

1.) that a lawful order was issued, providing clear and unequivocal direction to the Respondent;

2.)

that the Respondent knew of the Court's Order and intentionally disobeyed

it;

and

3.) that Respondent's disobedience defeated, impaired or prejudiced another party's rights (see,
Judiciary Law g 753; Matter of Petkovsek v Snyder,25l A.D.2d 1085; Matter of Hicks v. Russi,
254

A.D.2d 801; Evans v. Evans,242 A.D.zd 955)'

in this case Respondent's failure to comply with the Gorski Order in-rpaired the lights of those
were to be compensated for the Respondent's frivolous conduct which culminated in the 1996

. It is therefore this Court's


iolation of Judiciary Law $ 753.

determination that the Respondent is also guilty of civil contempt in

SUMMARY CONTEMPT
The Petitioner, on several occasions, has asked this Coun to find Respondent in cor-rtempt

mmarily based on many incidents of improper conduct by Respondent during these proceedings.
mples of such conduct include, but are not limited to:

l.

The Respondent's threatening this Court, in a letter dated June 18,2003 (see Court

Exhibit #2 from 712103),that this Court would personally pay for any loss suffered by
Respondent as follows

; ". - ..

This Court is now advised that your recent notice

requiring yet another appearance, conflicts with my vacation plans which have been
(_

scheduled for many months. I

will be out of the state. If this Court STILL insists that I


I will do so. I will not provide

appear, despite all of the previous identified violations,

the excuse for further abuse under color of law. Be advised however that i WILL recover the financial losses from you personally.".

2.)

Asserting in one of his many pleadings that Justice Gorski was involved in an illegal
conspiracy with Mr. Rodriguez and others to alter the record of the prior proceedings;

r.)

The Respondent's attempt to start a lawsuit against this Court in Federal District Court.

In that lawsuit he continues with his routine of naming several judges including Justice
Gorski, Justice Pigott as well as this judge. The apparent reason for starting such an action is to then move to disqualify the judge currently hearing his case. This conduct
was recognized by District Court Judge David Larimer as frivolous. The latest lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Larimer in an opinion which pointed out that the Respondent has, on at least two prior occasions in Federal District Court, been advised about the

principal ofjudicial immunity. This Court refused to grant Respondent's motion to


assign another judge to this case as it is clear that the Respondent would simply colltinue

to sue any judge he "senses" might issue an order he would find disagreeable. We cannot allow litigants to misuse our Courts in such
4.)
a manner.

Respondent's failure to appear at Court appearances without prior approval and without explanation.

5.)

Respondent's inappropriate statements in his "summation" videotape, including references to this Court as "Tom" on at least trventy-six (26) occasions and statenlents

sucii as "... that's a crock, huh, Tom".

iie the conduct of Respondent could be found to be contemptuous as the word contempt is used in rmal parlance, it takes more to fall into the category of contempt which can be punished sumn-rarily.
e

activity complained of must be disruptive to the proceedings or violate a directive of the Court at insulting,
as the

he proceedings. As disagreeable, and at times

Respondent's conduct and statements

y be, this Court cannot find that they crossed the threshold of conduct which could result in a

mnaly contempt finding.

SUMMARY

Respondent has a long history of vexatious litigation (see Justice Gorski's earlier Order,

'fi'ivolous and harassing" as well as the recent Order of U.S. District Court Judge Larimer). An

njunction was issued against Respondent limiting future litigation arising from the Family Court
tters, as well as limitations in U.S. District Court. It is this Court's intention to add to the earlier

njunction of Justice Gorski

provision prohibiting the Respondent from initiatine any new litigation

nless represented by an attorney.

Tliis Courl finds such

a requirement to be mandated as a result of the

liistory of the Respondent


a

is-a-vis the filing of frivolous lawsuits. The Rules of the Chief Administrator ($ 130-1.1-a) allorv for

rty who is not represented by an attorney to sign ail pleadings and thereby cerlifying that trpon
ble inquiry the pleadings are not frivolous. The Respondent has demonstrated his inability or nwillingness to provide such a certification. The requirement to retain an attorney to commence any uture actions will assure that our courts will not continue to be misused by the Respondent in order to ntinue to harass and annoy others with vexatious and frivolous lawsuits. Thc Respondent may apply
o proceed without an attorney by a request to procee d infornta resented

pauperis. Such application must

be

with

a detailed financial affidavit.

Based, therefore, on all the exhibits, testimony and arguments of both parties; it is hereby

ORDERED, that:
i

.)

On the finding of criminal contempt, the Respondent is hereby fined $ 1,000 and ordered

to serve thirty (30) days in the Monroe County Jail. The Respondent is ordered to report to the Monroe County Jall at or before Noon on October 1, 2003 to begin this senter-rce
unless stayed by a court of competent jurisdiction; and

2.)
L

On the finding of civil contempt, the Respondent is hereby ordered to serve sixty (60)
days in the Monroe County Jail, with said sentence to run consecutive to the

thirty (30)

days ordered above. The Respondent is hereby given the opporlunity to purge this

finding of civil contempt and avoid serving the sixty (60) days in jail provided for in this
paragraph by providing this Court with proof of payment of:

$2,500.00 to the State of New York

;
;

$2,798.00 to Saperston and Day, P.C..

$2,112.00 to James P. Vacca, Esq.; and $2,167.00 to the Attorney General of the State of New York.

$2,i 12.00 to James P. Vacca, Esq.; and

$2]67.00 to the Attorney General of the State of New York.


yment shall be made by certified bank draft with copies of same provided to this Court. Proof of yment must be filed with this Court on or before October 1,2003 in order to purge the contempt; and t is further

ORDERED, that the restrictions placed on the Respondent by Justice Gorski's 1996 Order shall
tinue with the additional condition that the Respondent shall not be allowed to commence any awsuit in the State of New York courts unless represented by an attorney. This requirement may be

aived upon an application by the Respondent sliowing that he is a "poor person" and has been denied presentation by agencies which provide free legal services to "poor persons".

THOMAS M. VAN STRYDONCK

Justice of the Supreme Court

PREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OF MONROE


E PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL TITE STATE OF NEW YORK,

COMMITMENT FOR CTVIL CONTEMPT. ruDICIARY LAW


SECTION 753 Index No. 2002113647

EVIN PATRICK BRADY,


Respondent,

THE SHERIFF FOR THE COUNTY OF MONROE:

lT IS IIEREBY ORDERED

that said KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, being a male, whose age is

,D.O.B.

lO \ td \5Q

residingat

ving been found of civil contempt of this Court pursuant to the Decision and Order of this Court dated 9,2003; and it is further ORDERED, that KEVIN PATRICK BRADY is directed ro pay:
fi.
(r'.\

(:)

(t) rfl N)

$2,500.00 to the State of New York

; ;

c.

r.

--ll

$2,798.00 to Saperston and Day, P.C.. $2,112.00 to James P. Vacca, Esq.;and

-a
CJ

rn

r.Y

$2,767 .00 to the Attorney General of the State of New

York

N)

certified bank draft with copies of same provided to the Court on or before October l, 2003 in order
purge this contempt; and it is further

ORDERED' that KEVIN PATRICK BMDY is sentenced to sixty (60) days in the Monroe
y Jail if he fails to purge the contempt, said sentence to be consecutive to rhe thirty (30) day
imposed upon the above person for his criminal conrempt.

September 10,2003

Justice of the Supreme Court

PREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK LINTY OF MONROE


E PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

-vs-

COMMITMENT FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 750


Index No.2002113647

VIN PATRICK BRADY,


Respondent.

THE SHERIFF FOR THE COUNTY OF MONROE:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, being


,

a male, whose age is

D.o.B. \O

\ G \5O residing ut 508 Lcc.l>1 Lqfle) E' Boc\esler,

NY

and he hereby is committed to a term of thirty (30) days commencing at Noon on October 1 , 2003;

it is further
ORDERED, that KEVIN PATRICK BRADY is directed to pay a fine in the amount of
I,000.00 to the New York State Office of Court Administration on or before October 1,2003.
ed: September 10,2003

Justice of the Supreme Court

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONROE KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, Plaintiff -against-

lndex No. 2013/00053 Hon. Matthew A. Rosenbaum

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND STEVEN E. FEDER, Defendants

DECISION AND ORDER


An emergency motion for reconsideration or to renew has been filed by Plaintiff
proceed following denial by the Hon. Thomas Moran of Plaintiff's motion seeking io
rn

forma pauperis. ln an application pursuantto CPLR 110'1, the movin9 paril'is required,
merit in addition to providing financial information , to set fotlh "sufficient facts so that the
of the contentions can be ascertained." ln the case

of Mina v. Mina,

8g

A.l)'zd

776 Gth

Dept., 1gB1), the Courl

held "Petitioner's affidavit fails to contain any ailegations from

which Family Courl could have determined that his desired appeal had any merit"" Thus, financial ability is not the only consideration in such an application.

ln addition, pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Hon. Thomas M. Van
Strydonck, dated September 9, 2003, which continued the restrictions set forlh in the order

of the Hon. Jerome C. Gorski entered March 5, 1996, Plaintiff was also prohibited from

commencing any Iawsuit unless represented by an attorney. Justice VanStrydonck he is a continued that the provision may be waived upon an application by Plaintiff that

poor person and has been denied representation by agencies which provide free legal services to "poor persons." Plaintiff has failed to show he has been denied nay such
is representation by agencies. Filing of an application in forma pauperis with the county

not sufficient under the order.

As plaintiff has not show compliance with the requirements of prior orders and has

the within also failed to set forth sufficient facts to show the merits of his contentions,
motion is denied. Therefore, it is

ORDERED, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration or renewal is denied, and it is


fu

rther

ORDERED, that the case will be dismissed if Plaintiff shall not pay the required fee within one hundred and twenty days from the date of this order'. Signed at Rochester New York this 14th day of y'une, 2A13'

A. Rosenbaum Supreme Court Justice


M

Page

ffIieof r{E$'yotr IUONROE C{}UNTY FA}IILY COURT

, $fi,scGillHF{*li *6exESr*8" nEyc!.of,* rAfi .*tst


Frr
. ri34l}# f*rrttc tlA.4eG"ISt

r*rhor.nrsrw

*fiillFbT.*tuo ts.atf *,lt*

n<IBCtf

t$,rl{;tt. rl}

t. ilaiTil+t

llfi,tt*H i *fi.*fila S.*rft.litr*1r

GROUND ZTRO
*prtl 19, 1tg{
ltr. I(. P6trlch Erady 3O Frcnch Creetc Drlie Rochesterr' Ner York f4618 '%lc Fl-. i;&b. 1020 Gleadon Circle g*$t 'nch*rtrr, t{er York 144St

RE'
ge6r lilf .

BRAI}T VS. EE', DOCTET lVt{86-91:

frtdy * itc.

@ss!ss:
en

as the number-sf uare*orved cnd pending p*titions ,: - se*egs* this matter, r am inetructing the Honroe county ra*irv courr clcrh'g office not to accpts-or fire uny furttrir petitione or applications by eithor party. pl6ae comply trlbh'exiering
orders

It lrcr rfilc tc ruy nttintion thqt !tr. Srr*y hcr rrap.*{trdly f,tl3d Ftvcrdl .Sudget and tbe Clrrkts Sffice, - Unlegs thls r$ursc of conduct ceaeeaj _l w fore*d ts sanlsct Lhe Eiatri.et 'E offi

Var{ $iuly Tours,

v q''iw
esr finbert

yltr4-l
llon. **n ltarie

t-

:3ffst$*I3f"9ffi,;f

$oaro*

erton If$n. Ars*Id Ci.rccio lln*, lnthoay f. Ftr*Edlo Hon. Hichael J. lliller
:f!, a*

:.

4 lt(

As filed in NerrYork Supreme Court October 28*2013

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF MONROE

4r^ * '"4rt^-o+
-oo*,
DECISION lndex No.2013-053

/J I t.

t%.,

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, Plaintiff,

@qb

-o '+
'%

*rt.

*vs-

THE PF0PL* OF NEW YORK by Afiorney General, defendant STEVEN E. FEDFR, Defendant.

ln this application, the defendant $tate of New York and a private attorney seek

to dismiss this action and impose sanctions on the plaintiff for violation of prior caurt
orders.

The plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, has filed nurnerous actions against state officials and the State of New York. He has been, prior this action, sanctioned by the state, federal and state Court of Claims for filing frivolous actions. He has been fined and been incarcerated for violations of prior court orders. ln March 'lgg6, state
Suprerne Court issr.red a permanent injunction, barring the plaintiff from filing any action in any court without the permission of the presiding or supervising judge of that Court.

ln ?003, state Supreme Csurt extended the earlier order and found the plaintiff in eivil

contempt, The 2003 order provided that the plaintiff could not commence any action
"unless represented by an attorney." Hswever, the later order permitted the permanent
injunction to be waivsd if the plaintiff established his entitlement to pcor persons status

and if he could dernonstrate that he had been denied representation by agencies which

provide free legal services to "poor per$ons."


ln 2013, the plaintiff filed another action and sought status in farma paupens.

His request was denied. The plaintiff filed "an emergenoy motion for rsconsideration to

renew." $upreme Oourt Justice Matthew Rosenbaum, in an order issued June


2013, found:

14,

(a)

the denial of poor persons status was appropriate because the


plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts so that the merit of the contentions can be ascertained as required by CFLR 1101{a); and,

{bi

that the p}aintiff had not met the conditions set forth in 2003 supreme court order because he failed to show that he had been denied representation by agencies which provide free legal seryices, as required by the 2003 Supreme Court order.

Justice Rosenbaum denied reconsideration or renewal and ordered that the case would be disrnissed if the plaintiff did not pay the required fee. After this decision, which was not appealed, plaintiff apparently purchased an index number and filed and served the current action. The State of New York then
mo\red ta dismiss the action and the private attorney, served with the papers, jcined the

state's motion. The State also scught sanclions for violations of the prior orders and
injunctions.

The Court has reviewed allthe paper$ in this matter. During oral argunnent, the
Court asked the plaintiff what basis he had for concluding that he had the permission of either the presiding or supervising judge of the Seventh Judicial District to bring this

action, despite the bar raised by the prior orders. Plaintiff stated that he considered

Justice Rosenbaum's June 14,2A13 order as granting him permission to bring this action and hence, the prior court orders no longer barred him from filing and serving this
action.

Justice Rosenbaum's June 14,2A13 can not be read, in any way, to sanction the

plaintiffs action or lift the bar on filings contained in the prior supreme court orders'
Justiee Rosenbaum's order did not constitute an approval of this action. As Justice Rosenbaum noted, there is no evidence in the petition before the Court that the plaintiff has been denied representation by agencies that provide free legal services. He held that the condition precedent to bring this action wiihout an attorney

in forma pauperis

status and proof that the plaintiff had been denied free legal services

was not

established in the plaintiff's petition under Article 1''l of the CPLR. He also held that the plaintiff had failed to establish sufficient facts to evaluate the merit of his claims. Justice Rosenbaum never approved the filing of this action as an exception to the prior permanent injunction and court orders.

The bar in the earlier orders remains in full force and effect. The plaintiffs filing
of this action, without an attorney, withoui evidence of being denied legal representation

by legal service agencies and without the approval of the supervising or presiding justice of the Court violates the prior court orders and the permanent injunction. Under these circumstances, this Court, after reviewing the papers and hearing

the plaintiff at motion term, gave the plaintiff 24 hours to withdraw the current action
without penalty. The Court told the plaintiff that if he failed to withdraw the action within

that period, the Court would impose a series of sanctions against the plaintiff.

The

"::":

plaintiff declined to withdraw the action and therefore, the Court has made the findings',

and imposed the penalties contained in the attached order.

to matters The prior court orders and the permanent injunction as they relate
involving this plaintiff remain in fullforce

^^1,3,W t ft
Ridhald A. Dollinger

Dated: october

7,2a13 KiU'&i
ru'sc

of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Monroe, at the Hall of Justice, Rochester, New York on the 8ft day ofNovember, 2013.

At

a Term

PRESENT: HON. RICHARD DQLLINGER


Justice Presiding

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: CO{.INTY OF MONROE

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY,

Petitioner,
-vs-

ORDER Index No. 2013-053

THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK bY AttorneY General, STEVEN E. FEDER, Esq.,


Respondents.

Petitioner, having instituted a proceeding by a Notice of Petition and affidavit, dated and

filed on June 26, 2013, seeking to render null and void previous judgments;
And Respondents, by their attorney, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Hillel Deutsch, Assistant Attomey General of Counsel, having submitted a Notice

of Motion, Affirmation and Memorandum of Law all dated July 18,2013, seeking to dismiss the
Petition and requesting sanctions; And the Court, having dismissed the Petition with prejudice by Order dated October 7,
2013 and ordered the Petitioner to shoe cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for his

failure to abide by numerous Court Orders;

of Ancl on Noyembcr 8, 201 3. the Court having considered the argumcnts


Respon6e't. b;,

Pe

titiofler and

llillcl

Deutsch. Assisrart Attorney Gcneral. and ltrnnti that Pstitioner has tailed

lris lirilurc tr} *bidc b)' to shur.v cause as to rviry san-ctinns should not be imposctl against hint ltrr numiirous C6urt Orders. with due deliberati0ns. it is hereby .*"

{* *.-

9,f^: pcr rlay' OR.DERI:|), rhar Pcritionc.ls dl*i]*eorneinftr+F+*nt* *t thc ratt ol'$50.00
of Oetober +.2013' liorn the commenf,.emcnr t-r!*thc action to rhe dalc ol'tlris flourt's prior'Ortier
rvhir:h is It)0 elal's. lbr a total ol'$5"{}00'00: {} ltD
I,,

:.t't. i .'{a*'v

RR

t}. tlrat l)ctirio,',*t i,

" h8fr)ik

l^

and r**-.,.
: i.1u-4J
irl tlrc rittc ot'$5t).00 pcr
da1'^

li*nr

rhe clate .11^the irrior

orticr ol-octotrer 4. 2013. unlil such time iw Rcspondent rvithdralvs

anri discor:tinucs with pre.iuiiice thc currcnt action: and

Ognf,nnn,

that Petitioncr is held in ctrntcmpt r>fcourt and. upon motion o1'the

i'i i_

,r,

l*--

subject to additronai: ltespondents or their counsel. or upon determination of ths Court, ma"l'be
sancrions up ro aiid including -'.withcut limitation

Ioss of

drivcr's licensc and a period ot'

incarccration: and

ORDllRgl), rhat Respondcnrs

and their counsel arc not to rcspond to an)' papers filed $r

served by lletirioner- in this or anv other actiein hc has previousll' lilcd or nral''

lilc in l'ururc'

iudg{: ilr tl}c unlcss such t'rlecl ur.rti scnetl papcrs inclurle an orcler. signcil by thc AdnrinistrritivLr Supcrvising Judge lbr thc Civil
Itesptindenls.

'l'erm in the Scvcnth Judicial l)istrict. dircr-:ting it rcspr:tlsc liottt

I)utcd:

Novemtrer 14.
Roclrester.

?01i

Neu'York
ION. I{IC} IARD DCILLiNOfiI{ Acting Supretnc Llourt .ltrstice
I

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT MONROE CCUNTY

,^ *i\ f*' *1 ,'f


\ .v -' ..4t'i, -\-p d Sa IIA'IAF AF lirJ r rvtr, rJr FIT'FT'

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY,


PetitioEier,

EFl I F(Y

lndex No. 2013-053 against-

THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK

Respondent.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the within is a true and complete copy of the

Order duly entered in the above-entitled matter in the Monroe Counff Clerk's Office on November 20,2013.

Dated:

November ZO,201i Rochester, New york


ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attomey for Respondent

Assista nt Attorney General NYS Office of the Attomev General 144 Exchange Boulevard, Suite 200 Rochester, New York 14614 Telephone: (58i) 546-7490

TO:

Kevin Patrick Bradv 508 Locust Lane East Rochester, New

york

144H;5