United States District Court, S.D. New York
JAMES H. BRADY, Plaintiff,
JOHN GOLDMAN, ESQ., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:
this Court is Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn's Report and
Recommendation, ("January 11 Report, " ECF No. 78),
recommending that a filing injunction be entered against
Plaintiff James Brady.
action is one of three Plaintiff has initiated in the
Southern District of New York in relation to his
cooperative's air rights,  this Court assumes familiarity
with the facts, and incorporates by reference the relevant
procedural and factual background set forth in detail in
Magistrate Judge Netburn's December 5, 2016 Report and
Recommendation granting seven motions to dismiss and
dismissing Plaintiffs complaint without leave to amend.
("Dec. 5 R&R, " ECF No. 70.) This Court adopted
that Report in full on January 11, 2016. (ECF No. 79.)
December 5, 2016 Report, Judge Netburn placed Plaintiff on
notice regarding entry of a filing injunction against him,
detailing thoroughly how the instant action is a part of
Plaintiffs repetitive and vexatious litigation. That same day,
Judge Netburn issued an Order to Show Cause as to why an
injunction should not be entered. (ECF No. 72.) Plaintiff
responded on December 14, 2016. (ECF No. 72.)
January 11 Report, Magistrate Judge Netburn advised the
parties that failure to file timely objections to the Report
would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal.
(Id. at 21-22); see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Plaintiff filed timely
objections to the Report, (see Pl.'s Obj. to
Jan. 10 Report, ECF No. 81), and also addressed the entry of
a filing injunction in his Objections to the December 5
Report and his Reply to Defendants' Response to his
Objections. (See January 11 Report, at 1-2.)
Defendants jointly filed timely responses to Plaintiffs
objections. (Defs.' Responses to Pl.'s Jan. 18 Obj.,
ECF No. 83.)
de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C), this Court overrules Plaintiffs meritless and
repetitive objections and fully adopts Magistrate Judge
courts in this District recognize that the issuance of an
injunction barring a litigant from the courthouse "is a
serious matter, " Raffe v. Doe, 619 F.Supp.
891, 898 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citation omitted), the Report
properly found, applying the five-factor inquiry in
Saffir v. U.S. Lines Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir.
1986),  that the circumstances surrounding this
litigation merit entry of a filing injunction. (See
January 11 Report, at 2-3.)
dispositive are the first two factors: this Court notes that
despite having exhausted his appellate remedies with regard
to Brady v. 450 31st Owners Corp., 894 N.Y.S.2d 416
(1st Dep't 2010), Plaintiff has filed a series of at
least eight collateral attacks on that initial litigation;
and in each he has inappropriately "impugn[ed] the
motivations and integrity of all the actors involved."
(See January 11 Report, at 4 (listing Plaintiffs
various actions).) These actions have "strained the
resources of both the federal and state judiciary ...."
(Id. at 5.) Also weighing heavily in this
Court's application of the Saffir factors is the
"strong evidence that other sanctions, including
monetary penalties, would not be sufficient to deter further
litigation from Brady, " who has been sanctioned twice
by New York State courts, including an imposition of more
than $400, 000 of attorneys' fees sanctions. (See
id., at 5-6.)
is hereby enjoined against filing new actions in the Southern
District of New York that relate in any way to the
cooperative's air rights appurtenant to his cooperative
unit at 450 West 31 st Street, New York, New York, or the
conduct of any attorney, judicial officer, government
official, or other third party in relation to such rights.
This injunction should be broadly construed to bar the filing
without leave of this Court of any case, against
any defendant that has as a factual predicate the
cooperative's air rights appurtenant to Plaintiffs
penthouse unit, or any of the collateral actions
that have arisen from it.
 In 2014, Justice Shirley Kornreich of
the New York Appellate Division, First Department found that
Brady's claims were precluded by the prior 2009
litigation, Brady v. 450 W. 31st St. Owners Corp.
("Brady II"), 70 A.D.3d 469 (2010), which was
resolved in favor of the Cooperative Defendants. See
Brady v. 450 West 31st Street Owners Corp. ("Brady
IF), Nos. 157779/2013, 654226/2013, 2014 WL 3515939
(Jul. 15, 2014 Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), (ECF No. 44-6).
 Indeed, as the Report notes, Plaintiff
has already been barred in New York state courts from
"initiating any further litigation as party plaintiff
without prior approval of the Administrative Judge of the
court in which he seeks to bring a further motion ...