patently frivolous. We need not permit plaintiffs to supplement their pleading in order to set forth allegations that could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed to state a claim against Fayer or Fayer & Greenberger.
F. Sanctions and Injunctive Relief
Finally, we turn to the parties' requests for sanctions and injunctive relief. All of the parties have requested sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Defendant Economou seeks the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting plaintiffs from bringing any further claims against him arising out of the foreclosure proceedings.
The record in this case amply demonstrates that plaintiffs are intent on litigating the same issues over and over again in the hopes of obtaining a more favorable result. Plaintiffs have pursued this course of action despite Justice Hillery's imposition of $ 300 in sanctions against them on December 1, 1993, and Judge Goettel's order dismissing the second federal action, which stated that plaintiffs' complaint in that case was totally frivolous and that plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from relitigating issues relating to the foreclosure in federal court. Plaintiffs filed this action less than four weeks after Judge Goettel issued his decision on June 21, 1995. Plaintiffs show no inclination to cease their attempts to pursue the claims that they assert here.
We therefore conclude that sanctions are appropriate to deter plaintiffs from continuing to reassert claims arising out of the foreclosure. We direct plaintiffs to pay the sum of $ 1000 to be divided among the defendants as follows: $ 600 to defendants Kadilac and Movtady and $ 400 to defendants Hatle, Pagliaro and Columbia.
Plaintiffs will make these payments within thirty days, unless plaintiffs reach an agreement with a particular defendant or defendants to extend the time for payment.
Although plaintiffs' conduct warrants the imposition of sanctions, we do not believe that it has yet reached a level of vexatiousness that would support the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting plaintiffs from filing any further claims concerning the foreclosure proceedings against Economou or the other defendants. Compare In Re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984); Polur v. Raffe, 912 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1990); Raffe v. Doe, 619 F. Supp. 891 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). "Barring a litigant from the courthouse is a serious matter, for access to the Courts is one of the cherished freedoms of our system of government." Raffe, 619 F. Supp. at 898 (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiffs are acting pro se, and we are reluctant to impose so harsh a penalty when monetary sanctions may yet dissuade plaintiffs from their present course of action. Therefore, we deny defendant Economou's request for a permanent injunction, and we once more give plaintiffs the opportunity voluntarily to cease their fruitless efforts to relitigate issues concerning the foreclosure proceedings.
For reasons that are obvious from our discussion above, the imposition of sanctions against each defendant would be wholly unwarranted. Therefore, plaintiffs' motions for sanctions are denied.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the summary judgment motions of defendants Kadilac, Movtady and Economou and the motion to dismiss of defendants Hatle, Pagliaro and Columbia. Plaintiffs' motions for leave to file amended and supplemental pleadings are denied.
Plaintiffs' motions for sanctions are denied. Defendant Economou's request for sanctions and application for a permanent injunction are denied. Defendants Kadilac and Movtady are awarded a total of $ 600 in sanctions, and defendants Hatle, Pagliaro and Columbia are awarded a total of $ 400 in sanctions. Plaintiffs must pay these amounts within thirty days of the date of this order, unless plaintiffs reach an agreement with a particular defendant or defendants to extend the time for payment.
Date: July 31, 1996
White Plains, New York
William C. Conner
Senior United States District Judge