Case ID: br_438/html/1125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re: Robert V. CASE, Robert V. Case, Debtor-Appellant, v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Appellees.
    No. 09-4899-BK.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 19, 2010.
    Robert V. Case, pro se, Groton, NY.
    Thomas J. Clark and Curtis C. Pett, Attorneys, Tax Division (Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, of counsel), for John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: B.D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   Debtor-Appellant Robert V. Case appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for Northern District of New York (Mordue, C.J.), denying his appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court (Cangilos-Ruiz, J.). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

When faced with an appeal from a district court’s review of a decision of the bankruptcy court, we conduct independent review of the bankruptcy court decision. In re Enron Corp., 419 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir.2005). We review a decision to lift an automatic stay for abuse of discretion. In re Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc., 351 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir.2003).

A bankruptcy court is authorized under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to lift an automatic stay “for cause.” A stay may be lifted to permit litigation to continue against the debtor in another court. See In re Bogdanovich, 292 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir.2002). We have catalogued a number of factors that a court should consider when faced with a motion to lift a stay so that other pending litigation may continue. See In re Sonnax Indus., Inc., 907 F.2d 1280, 1286 (2d Cir.1990). The Bankruptcy Court in the case before us considered the Sonnax factors carefully, and properly exercised its discretion by modifying the stay.

We have reviewed all of Case’s arguments and find them .to be meritless.

The judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.