SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

38 

CA 12-02233 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY A. 

WAGNER, DECEASED. 

--------------------------------------------- 

JAAN AARISMAA, IV, PETITIONER-APPELLANT; 

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN L. WAGNER, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

STANLEY A. WAGNER, DECEASED, 

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

JAAN AARISMAA, IV, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, ITHACA (MARK B. WHEELER OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Seneca County

(Dennis F. Bender, S.), dated August 31, 2012. The order, inter alia,

denied the motion of petitioner to vacate a judgment and decree

entered in October 2011 and enjoined petitioner from bringing further

pro se applications in this estate matter without the approval of

Surrogate’s Court. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed with costs and the matter is remitted to

Surrogate’s Court, Seneca County, for further proceedings in

accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an

order that, inter alia, denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to

vacate a judgment and decree entered in October 2011 and enjoined

petitioner from bringing any further pro se applications in this

estate matter without the approval of Surrogate’s Court. The judgment

and decree, inter alia, granted the motion of respondent, the executor

of decedent’s estate, for summary judgment dismissing the petition. 

We affirm. 

Petitioner contends that the Surrogate should have granted his

motion because the judgment and decree was procured through “fraud,

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party,” and

because the Surrogate “lack[ed] . . . jurisdiction to render” the

judgment and decree (CPLR 5015 [a] [3], [4]). Both of those

contentions are based on petitioner’s position that respondent’s

motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition was premature

because issue had not been joined and a note of issue had not been

filed. We reject both contentions. CPLR 3212 (a) provides that

“[a]ny party may move for summary judgment in any action[] after issue

has been joined; provided however, that the court may set a date after
-2- 38 

CA 12-02233 

which no such motion may be made, such date being no earlier than

thirty days after the filing of the note of issue.” Here, issue was

joined on or about October 5, 2011, when respondent served his answer

with counterclaims (see generally Airco Alloys Div. v Niagara Mohawk

Power Corp., 76 AD2d 68, 75) and, therefore, respondent’s

contemporaneous summary judgment motion was not premature (see CPLR

3212 [a]; cf. Coolidge Equities Ltd. v Falls Ct. Props. Co., 45 AD3d

1289, 1289; C.S. Behler, Inc. v Daly & Zilch, 277 AD2d 1002, 1003). 

Further, pursuant to the plain language of CPLR 3212 (a), there is no

merit to petitioner’s position that a note of issue must be filed

before a party moves for summary judgment or before a court grants

such a motion. We thus conclude that the Surrogate did not abuse his

discretion in denying the motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) inasmuch as

petitioner failed to set forth any factual or legal basis for his

contentions concerning fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct

on the part of respondent, or for lack of jurisdiction on the part of

the Surrogate (see Abbott v Crown Mill Restoration Dev., LLC, 109 AD3d

1097, 1100; Tribeca Lending Corp. v Crawford, 79 AD3d 1018, 1020, lv

dismissed 16 NY3d 783; Pollock v Wilson, 26 AD3d 772, 772; Utica Mut.

Ins. Co. v East End Pools & Cts., 271 AD2d 526, 527, lv dismissed 95

NY2d 902).

Petitioner further contends that he should have been granted a

default judgment for a sum certain pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a) inasmuch

as respondent failed to appear in this matter. As noted above,

however, respondent did not fail to appear but, rather, filed an

answer with counterclaims. Petitioner therefore is not entitled to a

default judgment for a sum certain (see id.). 

We conclude that the Surrogate did not abuse his discretion in

ordering that petitioner obtain court approval before filing any

further pro se applications against respondent, the estate, or the

attorney for the estate (see Bikman v 595 Broadway Assoc., 88 AD3d

455, 455-456, lv denied 21 NY3d 856; Jones v Maples, 286 AD2d 639,

639, lv dismissed 97 NY2d 716). Although “public policy mandates free

access to the courts[,] . . . when a litigant is ‘abusing the judicial

process by hagriding individuals solely out of ill will or spite,

equity may enjoin such vexatious litigation’ ” (Matter of Shreve v

Shreve, 229 AD2d 1005, 1006, quoting Sassower v Signorelli, 99 AD2d

358, 359; see Breytman v Schechter, 101 AD3d 783, 785, lv dismissed 21

NY3d 974). Here, despite numerous adverse determinations and repeated

warnings by the Surrogate and, more recently, by this Court (Matter of

Aarismaa v Bender, 108 AD3d 1203, 1205), petitioner continues to file

frivolous and largely incomprehensible applications, based on his

erroneous beliefs that issue was never joined and that a note of issue

must be filed before a summary judgment motion may be made and

granted. We therefore conclude that the Surrogate properly enjoined

petitioner from continuing to use the legal system to harass

respondent, to deplete the assets of the estate, and to waste the time

of the Surrogate and this Court (see Ram v Torto, 111 AD3d 814,

815-816, lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Jan. 21, 2014]; Bikman, 88 AD3d at

455-456; Jones, 286 AD2d at 639).
-3- 38 

CA 12-02233 

In light of the frivolous nature of this appeal and petitioner’s

continued abuse of the judicial system, we conclude that the

imposition of costs is appropriate (see Burkhart v Modica, 81 AD3d

1356, 1358, lv dismissed 17 NY3d 850, lv denied 18 NY3d 853; Ginther v

Jones, 35 AD3d 1224, 1224, lv denied 8 NY3d 810). Finally, we

conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, sanctions are

warranted (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Ram, 111 AD3d at 816; Matter of

Hirschfeld v Friedman, 307 AD2d 856, 859). We therefore remit the

matter to the Surrogate to determine the amount of sanctions to be

imposed, following a hearing if necessary (see Burkhart, 81 AD3d at

1358; Charles & Boudin v Meyer, 307 AD2d 272, 274).

Entered: February 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court