NYS Appellate Division Third Department legalizes ex parte motions

I've written on this blog already about the illegal way of how my disciplinary case was transferred from the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department to the Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department.

I've written on this blog that I was never served with the "application" for that ex parte order of transfer, that the "application" was never transferred with the rest of the court record to the transferee court, Appellate Division Fourth Department, and that the Appellate Division Third Department adamantly refuses to provide to me access to that particular portion of the court record, while Appellate Division Fourth Department proceeds (without authority) on an incomplete record.

This is a response to my motion - denied, no explanation given. 

Not good enough. 

The motion was based upon my affirmation, the court has no proof of service of the "application and papers filed in support" of the application, there was no opposition to my motion, so the court had a legal obligation to follow the law and to grant my motion by default and as a matter of law.

Moreover, I asked for sanctions for frivolous conduct against the attorneys and the attorney disciplinary committee of the Third Department who admittedly made an ex parte motion.

Yet, this is not how the Third Department operates. 

The Third Department participated in misconduct, decided an illegal ex parte motion made by the 3rd Department attorney disciplinary committee, then recused from my disciplinary case - and yet sticks like glue to my other cases, despite a well established rule - a judge recuses from one case involving a party, there must be a recusal from all other cases, because the judge's impartiality may already reasonably be questioned.

Now the Third Department refused to grant sanctions for making an ex parte motion - which motion was UNOPPOSED and was supposed to be granted BY DEFAULT. Nothing like protecting the disciplinary committee - which means bias - which means the court should not have even been reviewing and deciding this motion because of its obvious involvement in misconduct described in the motion, the actual reason for the motion.

The Third Department positioned itself as an arbitrary ruler who is above the law because - guess what - what are my chances that the 3rd Department's decision will be overturned on appeal in the NYS Court of Appeals and that my petition for certiorari will be granted by the U.S. Supreme Court - right, the chances are negligibly small.

Therefore, the Third Department can adamantly and obnoxiously flaunt in my face a decision, without an explanation, reasoning or legal grounds, an illegal and unconstitutional decision saying - here, what can you do about it - nothing?

In fact, I can do something. 

First, I can write about it and I can contribute to the growing awareness of corruption and open and adamant misconduct and incompetence in courts throughout this state and this country, on all levels. 

Second, since I consider such a decision, especially in view of what kind of motion is denied without an explanation, and what kind of circumstances were the basis for the motion - as adamant, obnoxious, unlawful and unconstitutional.


The court must at the very least provide legal grounds upon which such motions are denied, if they are denied.  It is a litigant's due process right, and I will be asserting it by available legal means - and some legal means, believe it or not, are still available to me.

What the court did instead is that it created a self-serving precedent legalizing what constitutes both attorney misconduct and judicial misconduct - an ex parte motion made by a party, reviewed and decided by the court, and where the court and the party continue to refuse, for a year now, to release papers upon which the order was based and which are clearly identified in that order.

Stay tuned as to how the situation develops.