1 16-1670
Buczek v. Tirone



## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JA NUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMITTED AND IS GOVERNE D BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 2 New York, on the 22 nd day of December, two thousand sixteen. 3

4
PRESENT: 5 RALPH K. WINTER, 6 DENNIS JACOBS, 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 Circuit Judges. 9

_____________________________________ 10

11 Deborah Ann Buczek, Real Party Interest 12
Rule 17a SECURED PARTY Uniform 13
Commercial Code FILING 14
ACKNOWLEDGMENT NY DEPT. OF 15 STATE 201405120259837/201405290292729, 16

17 Plaintiff-Appellant, 18
19
v. 16-1670 20

21 Gasper A. Tirone, Co-Trustees of Gasper 22
A. Tirone and Elaine E. Trust U/A dated 23 February 9, 2011, Elaine E. Tirone, 24 Co-Trustees of Gasper A. Tirone and Elaine 25 E. Trust U/A dated February 9, 2011, Steven 26 W. Wells, Gasper A. Tirone, Trust, dated 27 February 9, 2011, Elaine E. Tirone, Trust, 28 dated February 9, 2011, Garry M. 292 Graber, Jason E. Markel, Michael E. Reyen, 1 Craig T. Lutterbein, Gregory J. Gillette, 2

3

4 Defendants-Appellees, 5

6 American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., Scott 7 Janas, John E. Schmidt, Jr., Timothy J. 8 Walker, Private Capa city, William F. 9 Savino, Gilbert Reyes, Private Capacity, 10 Gilbert Reyes, Private Capacity, 11 Stanley Kwieciak, III, Esq., Brian D. Gwitt, 12 Darryl J. Colosi, John Garbo, New York 13 State Tax Department, Mrs. Gribble, 14 Suzanne McFayden, Sam Maneaun, Wells 15 Fargo Bank, 16

17

Defendants. 

### * 18

_____________________________________ 19

20
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Deborah Ann Buczek, pro se, Derby, NY. 21

22
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Kevin Miles Kearney, Hodgson Russ LLP, 23 Buffalo, NY. 24
25

Appeal from a judgment of the United States Di strict Court for the We stern District of New 26 York (Skretny, J .). 27

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 28
DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. 29 Plaintiff-Appellant Deborah Ann Buczek, pro se, appeals from the district court’s 30 judgment dismissing as res judicata her claims against defendants for allegedly obtaining a 31 foreclosure judgment against her commercial pr operty through fraud and violations of her 32 constitutional rights. We assume the parties’ fa miliarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 33 history of the case, a nd the issues on appeal. 34
We review de novo a district court’ s application of res judicata. Computer Assocs. Int’l v. 35 Altai, Inc. , 126 F.3d 365, 368 (2d Cir. 1997). When appl ying the doctrine, “a federal court must 36 give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as w ould be given that judgment under 37 the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.” Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of 38

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to conform
with the above.3 Educ. , 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984); accord O’Connor v. Pierson , 568 F.3d 64, 69 (2d Cir. 2009). 1 “New York law has adopted a ‘transactional appr oach’ to [res judicata] . ‘[O]nce a claim is 2 brought to a final conclusion, all other claims aris ing out of the same transaction or series of 3
transaction are barred . . . .’” McKithen v. Brown , 481 F.3d 89, 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting 4 Gargiul v. Tompkins , 790 F.2d 265, 269 (2d Cir. 1986); O’Brien v. City of Syracuse , 54 N.Y.2d 5 353, 357 (1981)) (citations omitted). 6 Here, upon de novo review of the record and the a bove principles, we conclude that the 7 district court properly dismissed Buczek’s complain t. We therefore affirm for substantially the 8 reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-r easoned April 25, 2016 decision and 9
order. 10 We have considered all of Buczek’s argumen ts and find them to be without merit. 11 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 12

13

FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15