Opinion
November 18, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.).
Plaintiff's argument that the IAS Court should have amended the October 21, 1992 order so as to delete the phrase "with prejudice", after that order had been affirmed on appeal ( 193 A.D.2d 553), was previously rejected by this Court on the ground that such a change would involve a matter of substance beyond the Court's inherent power of control over its judgments ( 214 A.D.2d 440). The motion was typical of a history of making repetitive, meritless motions for the same relief that amply justifies the costs sanction, as well as injunctive relief designed to forestall further vexatious litigation (see, Gabrelian v. Gabrelian 108 A.D.2d 445, 454, appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 741). We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Motion seeking costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 et seq., and for other related relief granted to the extent of imposing costs of $1,000 for each appeal, for a total of $3,000, payable by plaintiff to defendants jointly. The repetitive, meritless and vexatious litigation tactics employed by plaintiff-appellant are again exhibited on these three appeals.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.