Muka v. Hancock, Estabrook, Ryan, Shove & Hust
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
John R. Tenney, J.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has commenced a series of actions against numerous defendants. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a cause of action, and this motion is granted, with costs.
Defendants also have moved to permanently enjoin prosecution of suits by plaintiff appearing pro se. It is contended that plaintiff has repeatedly engaged in a course of conduct of commencing repetitious, baseless and harassing lawsuits and, therefore, has forfeited her right to start pro se proceedings. Plaintiff did not appear because she…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kane v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1979
- Morgan Consultants v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
- People v. MukaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
3Cited by8 opinions
- Birdo v. HolbrookCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1989
- State Ex Rel. Bardacke v. WelshNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1985
- Lazich v. VittoriaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Board of County Commissioners v. WinslowSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985
- Spremo v. BabchikNew York Supreme Court · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.