Legal Malpractice Unavailing and Now Enjoined
Here is a case in which the attorney has successfully shut down plaintiff's case, plaintiff's future cases, and in general, plaintiff himself. It's rare that defendant scores a victory so comprehensive. The Appellate Division, and earlier, Justice Ling-Cohan in Banushi v Law Off. of Scott W. Epstein 2013 NY Slip Op 06930 Decided on October 24, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department found plaintiff's case most unworthy.
"Notwithstanding the public policy requiring free access to the courts, the motion court's order barring plaintiff from initiating further litigation or motion practice against defendants without prior court approval unless he is represented by counsel was justified by plaintiff's continuous and vexatious litigation against defendants (Matter of Robert v O'Meara, 28 AD3d 567 [2d Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 716 ; Capogrosso v Kansas, 60 AD3d 522 [1st Dept 2009], cert denied ___ US ___, 133 S Ct 278 ; see also Melnitzky v Apple Bank for Sav., 19 AD3d 252, 253 [1st Dept 2005]). Among other things, in addition to the instant action, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court and a lawsuit in federal court and a counterclaim in a third suit, as well as a disciplinary complaint, all alleging legal malpractice based on the same sparse allegations, and all unavailing.
Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the order is not overly broad; it granted the part of defendants' motion that sought injunctive relief only as to litigation against them. "