Case: Document: 40 Page: 1 04/15/

Transcription

1 Case: Document: 40 Page: 1 04/15/ UNTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CRCUT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY Telephone: Docket Number(s): cv MOTON NFORMATON STATEMENT Motion for: Reconsideration Teitelbaum v. Katz Caption [use short title] Set forth below precise, complete statement ofrelief sought: Appellant moves for reconsideration of this Court's April 3, 2014 decision to dismiss the appeal. MOVlN~TY: Jacob Teitelbaum UPlaintiff [l]appellantlpetitioner 8Defendant Appellee/Respondent OPPOSNG PARTY: Defendants Appellees MOVNG ATTORNEY: Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se OPPOSNG ATTORNEY: Juda Katz Pro Se [name ofattorney, with firm, address, phone number and ] Jacob Teitelbaum Juda Katz cia Ben Friedman 5 Leipnik Way # 102, 22 Hayes Court, Unit ~------~ Monroe, New York, Tel. No Monroe, New York, Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: Judge John M. Walker, Jr., Denny Chin, Christopher F. Droney, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTONS, MOTONS FOR STAYS AND NJUNCTONS PENDNG APPEAL: Has movant noti~opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has request for relief been made below? DYes DNo [l] YesUNo (explain): Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? DYes DNo Requested return date and explanation ofemergency: Opposinp..!:;nmsel's position on motion: U unopposedgpposed [{Pon't Know Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: i D Yes GoZPon't Know s oral argument on motion requested? Has argument date ofappeal been set? DYes [i] No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted) DYes [i]no fyes, enter Signature of Moving Attorney: M;, tt,r...,/ Date: April 13, 2014 Service by: DCMJECF [i] Other [Attach proofof service] ~~~l~~~ ~ Form T 1080 (rev )

2 Case: Document: 40 Page: 2 04/15/ UNTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CRCUT J\ JACOB TETELBAUM, individually and as father to CHLD A and CHLD B, Plaintiff-Appellant, -against- Docket No.: cv NOTCE OF MOTON FOR RECONSDERATON JUDA KATZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees )f, Plaintiff-Appellant, JACOB TETELBAUM, pro se, pursuant to Local Rule 27.1 and Rule 27(b) ofthe Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ("FRAP"), respectfully moves and requests this Court upon the Declaration ofplaintiff-appellant dated April 13,2014 (a) to reconsider its April 3, 2014 order, dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant's Appeal for not filing a timely Notice ofappeal and denying Plaintiff-Appellant's Motion for in forma pauperis status as moot, (b) (c) to admit Plaintiff-Appellant's Notice of Appeal, and to grant in forma pauperis status to Plaintiff-Appellant. Under Rule 4(a)( 4)(A) offrap, ifa party files in the District Court, among others, a motion "for relief under Rule 60" offederal Rules ofcivil Procedure ("FRCP"), and "ifthe motion is filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered, the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry ofthe order disposing ofthe last such remaining motion". 1

3 Case: Document: 40 Page: 3 04/15/ As explained in succeeding paragraphs, Plaintiff-Appellant's Notice of Appeal was timely filed according to the FRAP and filing records. The District Court for Southern District ofnew York (the "District Court"), presided by Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti, Judge, filed and entered a judgment in action entitled Teitelbaum v. Katz et a12-cv-2858 on July 2,2013 ("Judge Briccetti's judgment"). Thereafter, Plaintiff-Appellant invoked the provisions ofrule 60 offrcp, and filed a new complaint in the District Court as an independent action pursuant to Rule 60(d) offrcp on or about July 30,2013; i.e., within 28 days ofthe entry ofjuly 2,2013 judgment. Plaintiff-Appellant's new complaint was dismissed by Chief United States District Judge, Loretta A. Preska, in her judgment entered on October 2,2013 ("Judge Preska's judgment"). Plaintiff-Appellant then filed a motion for reconsideration ofjudge Preska's judgment pursuant to Rules 50, 52, 59, and 60 offrcp and Local Rule 6.3 in the District Court on October 30,2013; i.e., within 28 days ofthe entry ofjudge Preska's judgment. Plaintiff-Appellant's motion for reconsideration ofjudge Preska's judgment was denied by Chief United States District Judge, Loretta A. Preska, in her order issued on December 17, 2013, which order was entered on December 18, Because both the new complaint brought by Plaintiff-Appellant and his motion for reconsideration ofjudge Preska's judgment were filed for relief, among others, under Rule 60 of FRCP; the time to file Appeal, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(4)(A) offrap, runs from entry ofthe order disposing ofthe last motion; which, in the present case, was entered on December 18, As such, Plaintiff-Appellant' s Notice of Appeal from Judge Briccetti' s judgment (entered on July 2,2013) was timely filed on January 9, 2014 in keeping with the provisions ofrule 4(a)(4)(A) offrap. 2

4 Case: Document: 40 Page: 4 04/15/ WHEREFORE, PREMSES CONSDERED, Plaintiff-Appellant respectfully requests that an order be entered granting the aforementioned requests. Dated this 13 th day of April, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Ja8lt)Teitelbaum, Plaintiff Pro Se c/o Ben Friedman 5 Leipnik Way, #102 Monroe, N.Y

5 Case: Document: 40 Page: 5 04/15/ UNTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CRCUT J\ JACOB TETELBAUM, individually and as father to CHLD A and CHLD B, -against- JUDA KATZ, ET AL., Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendants-Appellees., )( Docket No.: cv DECLARATON N SUPPORT OFMOTON FOR RECONSDERATON, JACOB TETELBAUM, hereby declare pursuant to 28 USC 1746 as follows: 1. am Plaintiff-Appellant in the above-entitled action. 2. The District Court for Southern District ofnew York (the "District Court"), presided by Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti, Judge, filed and entered a judgment (Teitelbaum V Katz et a12-cv-2858) on 07/02/2013 ("Judge Briccetti's judgment"). 3. As Judge Briccetti's judgment was vitiated by fraud, in which Judge Briccetti was himself involved, filed a new complaint as an independent action pursuant to Rule 60( d) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the District Court on or about 07/30/2013; i.e., within 28 days of entry ofjudge Briccetti's judgment. 4. Along with my new complaint, also filed a "Request to proceed informa pauperis" in the District Court on 07/30/ Both my new complaint and "Request to proceed in forma pauperis" were entered on the docket ofthe case on 08/

6 Case: Document: 40 Page: 6 04/15/ My new complaint was dismissed by Chief United States District Judge, Loretta A Preska in her judgment issued on 09/30/2013, which judgment was entered on 10102/2013 ("Judge Presca's judgment"). 7. filed a motion for reconsideration ofjudge Presca's judgment pursuant to Rules 50, 52, 59, and 60 ofthe Federal Rules ofcivil Procedure and Local Rule 6.3 ofthe District Court, as well as a motion for recusal and/or disqualification along with my supporting affidavit, in the District Court on l3; i.e., within 28 days ofthe entry ofjudge Presca's judgment. 8. My two aforesaid motions, which were entered on the docket ofthe case on 10/ , were denied by Chief United States District Judge, Loretta A Preska, in common order issued by her on 12/17/2013, which order was entered on ("December 17 Order"). 9. filed Notice ofappeal from Judge Briccetti's judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on or about 01/09/2014, and said Notice of Appeal was entered on 01/14/ Along with Notice of Appeal, also filed motion for leave to appeal informa pauperis in the United States Court ofappeals for the Second Circuit. 11. The United States Court ofappeals for the Second Circuit, in an order issued on April 3, 2014, has sua sponte held that my Notice ofappeal was untimely filed, and consequently dismissed my Appeal for lack ofjurisdiction, and denied the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis as moot. 12. As both the new complaint brought by me and my motion for reconsideration of Judge Preska's judgment were filed for relief, among others, under Rule 60 offrcp~ the time to 5

7 Case: Document: 40 Page: 7 04/15/ file Appeal, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(4)(A) offrap, runs from entry ofthe order disposing ofthe last motion; which, in the present case, was entered on December 18, As such, my Notice of Appeal from Judge Briccetti' s judgment (entered on July 2,2013) was timely filed on January 9,2014 in keeping with the provisions ofrule 4(a)(4)(A) of FRAP. 14. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff-Appellant respectfully requests that: (a) the Court reconsider its April 3, 2014 order; and (ii) the Court order that Plaintiff-Appellant's Notice ofappeal is admitted, and that Plaintiff-Appellant is granted informa pauperis status. Dated this 13 th day of April, 2014 Monroe, New York. Jacob Teitelbaum, Plaintiff Pro Se clo Ben Friedman 5 Leipnik Way, #102 Monroe, N.Y

8 Case: Document: 40 Page: 8 04/15/ UNTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CRCUT CAPTON: JACOB TETELBAUM v. CERTFCATE OF SERVCE JUDA et al Docket Number: -.:..14.:--9:.::3...::.-cv~, JACOB TETELBAUM, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on (name) April 13, 2014, served a copy of Form T-1080, NOTCE OF MOTON (date) FOR RECONSDERATON, and DECLARATON N SUPPORT OF MOTON FOR RECONSDERATON by (select all applicable)* (list all documents) m United States Mail D Federal Express o Overnight Mail D Facsimile D o Hand delivery on the following parties (complete all information and add additional pages as necessary): " Juda Katz, 22 Hayes Court, Unit 201 Monroe New York Name Address City State Zip Code Name Address City State Zip Code Name Address City State Zip Code Name Address City State Zip Code April 13, 2014 Today's Date VSignature *fdifferent methods ofservice have been used on different parties, please indicate on a separate page, the type ofservice used for each respective party. Certificate ofservice Form

9 Case: Document: 40 Page: 9 04/15/ Rebecca Baldwin Montello, Esq. One Corwin Court, P.O. Box 1479 Newburgh, New York, T F ;rmantello@tclmm.com Gregg D. Weinstock, Esq. 432 Park Avenue South, 9th Floor New York, NY, T F ;gweinstock@garbarini-scher.com David Darwin, Esq. Orange County Dept. oflaw. Municipal Law Division 15 Matthews Street, Suite 305 Goshen, New York, T F ;ddarwin@orangecountygov.com Siler & ngber LLP Jeffrey B. Siler Esq. Attorneys for defendant Kiryas oel Community Ambulance Corporation 1399 Franklin Avenue, Suite 103 Garden City, N.Y T F j siler@nylawnet.com Hannigan Law Firm PLLC Terence S. Hannigan Esq Western Avenue, Suite 140 Albany, N.Y T F terry@hannigan. pro Patrick T. Burke, Esq. Burke, Miele & Golden, LLP 40 Mathews Street, Suite 209 P.O.B. 216 Goshen, New York, T F

10 Case: Document: 40 Page: 10 04/15/ JudaKatz, ChayaKatz 22 Hayes Court, Unit 201 Monroe, New York:, Joel Tennenbaum Bluma Tennenbaum 16 Lizensk Boulevard, Unit 102 Monroe, New York:, David Hollander 1 Chernobyl Court Unit 102 Monroe, New York:, Miriam Teitelbaum 20 Getzel Berger Boulevard, Unit 104 Monroe, New York:, 10950

11 Case: Document: 40 Page: 11 04/15/ PRORTY *MAL* Jacob Teitelbaum Co Ben Friedman 5 Leipnik Way # 102 Monroe, New York " FLAT RATE ENVEf!OPUc t.,:lw.4~!i 11: ONE R':\,TE * ANY WEGHTJ...:::J,,,.:a.. 'JJ..Jl./l :;,""'1..,... APPLY PRORTY MAL P~~TAG~..DN' ~.., -', -.~ 11111' ~"" "' ~':~~ ;!;~~' 1006 ~"" ""1111 '"'' 0007 U.S. POSTAGE PAD MONROE.N''. OH!10 APR 13.' 1<1 AMOUNT $ e~ PoST4LSERVCE< USPS TRACKNG # -_.."..J! USPS TRA<;~,,,,,. & CUSTOMER ' RECEPT >c: For ntemen"",""", _W"' For rraclcing or i/qurtes 90 to USPs.com orcaj _181f. UNTED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SECOND CRCUT Thurgood Marshall U.s. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York EP14H July 2013 Outer Dimension: 10 x 5

12 Case: Document: 40 Page: 12 04/15/ S.D.N.Y. W.P. 12-cv-2858 Briccetti, J. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CRCUT At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3 rd day of April, two thousand fourteen. Present: John M. Walker, Jr., Denny Chin, Christopher F. Droney, Circuit Judges. Jacob Teitelbaum, individually and as father to Child A and Child B, Juda Katz, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v Defendants-Appellees. Appellant, pro se, moves for in forma pauperis status. However, this Court has determined sua sponte that the notice of appeal was untimely filed. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the appeal is DSMSSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). t is further ORDERED that Appellant s motion is DENED as moot. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O Hagan Wolfe, Clerk SAO-AD