Appellate Brief
SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT CASE NO:
Javino,
Petitioner,
vs.
Denton,
Respondents.
Table of Contents Page
Table of Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Point on Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Statement of the Case and Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Summary of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ….6
Argument on Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … .. . .8
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table of Citations
Cases Page
City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 15, 22, 23
Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25
Statutes Page
- Stat. 627.428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23
- Stat. 768.79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 10, 14
Point on Appeal
This Court should answer why it is prohibiting the Defendant from writing any motions without court permission; why it is denying the Defendant basic discovery and, finally; why it denied the Defendant’s motion to hold Plaintiff in contempt while she has perjured herself with regard to a promissory note which is Plaintiff’s entire case. Further, the Defendant would like to know why the court prohibited him from starting any new law suits against the Plaintiff.
Statement of the Case and Facts
This appeal arose from the decision made by the Court to prohibit the Defendant from writing any motions without Court permission. Additionally, the Court also denied the Defendant basic discovery. Further, the Court also declined the Defendant’s motion to hold Plaintiff in contempt while the Plaintiff had perjured herself with regard to a promissory note. It is worth noting that the Plaintiff’s attorney had drafted and submitted fraudulent and perjured document, knowing full well that it was false. In that light, the Defendant feels that the judge’s decision not to file an appeal against the Plaintiff goes against the legal procedures. The Defendant, therefore, makes an appeal to be granted permission for discovery and also to be granted unfettered permission to write any new motions and any new law suits against the plaintiff without waiting to be granted permission by the Judge. Further, the Defendant request the court grant him permission to start new law suits against the Plaintiff
Summary of Argument
The issue before this Court is whether, in light of this Court’s recent decision in Denton v Javino (NY 2019) to prohibit the Defendant from writing any motions without court permission, to deny the Defendant basic discovery and, finally, to deny the Defendant’s motion to hold Plaintiff in contempt. It is clear that the Plaintiff has perjured herself with regard to a promissory note which she submitted to the Court in the case. The Defendant, therefore, calls upon the Court to review these three rulings and revisit them. The time to revisit the issue is, indeed, ripe and this application by the Defendant calls for exactly that. We submit that there are several reasons why this Court should reconsider its prior decisions concerning whether the Defendant should be prohibited from writing any motions without court permission, or whether the Defendant should be granted basic discovery, or whether the Defendant should be denied the opportunity to present a motion to hold Plaintiff in contempt even after it has been proved that the Plaintiff presented false documents in the Court. Further, we submit that there are a number of reasons why the Defendant should be granted the right to start new law suits against the Plaintiff.
In the appellate division second department 2019-07628 ind 464/2015, this Court decided that the Defendant cannot write any motions without seeking a prior permission from the Court. Further, the Court denied the Defendant the basic discovery and the opportunity to present a motion to hold Plaintiff. All these decision go against New York Statute 768.79, which take away the authority to deny a Defendant these rights from the Court. Therefore, the Court had no authority to impose these restrictions on the Defendant. Since New York Statute 527.428 is clear and unambiguous and does not authorize the Court to deny the Defendant an opportunity to write motions without court permission, to grant basic discovery to the Defendant and also give the Defendant a chance to present a motion to hold Plaintiff in contempt and to grant Defendant the right to start new law suits against the Plaintiff. This is especially true in light of the fact that, unlike certain legal policy statutes, New York Statute 627.428 was never intended to discourage private litigation. To the contrary, the statute was enacted to ensure that every person gets equal chance in Court to express themselves to the judge.
Furthermore, the New York Bar Rules clearly spell out the factors that can lead to the denial of certain rights to either the Plaintiff or the Defendant. In a trial in New York’s Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (NY. 1985), determined the factor form the basis for the determination of a reasonable Court’s control of the activities of either the Plaintiff or the Defendant. In Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (NY. 1990), this Court relied on United States Supreme Court cases as authority to determine the procedures that should be followed when imposing limits on either the Plaintiff or the Defendant.
Argument on Appeal
At issue in this Petition is whether, in light of this Court’s recent decision in Denton v Javino (NY, 2019) to prohibit the Defendant from writing any motions without court permission, denying the Defendant basic discovery, declining the Defendant’s motion to hold Plaintiff in contempt while she has perjured herself with regard to a promissory note, and also prohibiting the Defendant from starting any new law suits against the Plaintiff. The time is ripe for the Court to revisit its decision on these three matters and consider the New York Statute 627.428, which grants the Defendant these rights. Second, this is not a litigation that involves federal public interest statutes where the litigation itself is likely to benefit the public as a whole and not just the litigants themselves, New York Statute 627.428.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court revisit and review its decision to prohibit the Defendant from writing any motions without its permission, denying the Defendant basic discovery and, denying the Defendant’s motion to hold Plaintiff in contempt while she has perjured herself with regard to a promissory note she presented to the Court, and prohibiting the Defendant from starting any new law suits against the Plaintiff, under New York’s Statute 627.428.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. If the above sounds reasonable to you, please do not hesitate to write back.
